finance_stripe_failed_payment_recovery

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context about auth and scoping ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and the dispatcher routing behavior, but it never discloses what side effects the recovery action may have, such as refunds, emails, or status changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action name, and wastes no words. It is cleanly structured into a purpose line, routing context, and an Args section.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a domain agent action with two fully generic parameters and a destructive hint, the description leaves major gaps: no explanation of what the recovery does, when to invoke it, what inputs are valid, or what side effects to expect. An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the calling context is still underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names generically: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It does not explain what kind of objective text or structured inputs the failed payment recovery action expects.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_stripe_failed_payment_recovery,' which mostly restates the tool name rather than explaining what failed payment recovery actually does. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but gives no domain-level purpose, so an agent cannot distinguish it from similar finance_stripe_* siblings like finance_stripe_dunning_recovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the routing mechanism and scope ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which is context about execution, not decision guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.