Pay Ticket With Credit

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the material consequence — "Spends real money" — plus a mandatory user-confirmation step, which is behavior an agent cannot read off the hints. It does not cover partial-batch failure or insufficient-balance handling.

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?

Two short sentences: the action and its funding source first, then the safety warning. Nothing is wasted and the most important risk is front-loaded within the second clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essentials for a money-spending mutation: funding source, eligibility, and confirmation. It omits failure modes (insufficient credit, partially paid batches) that matter for a destructive batch operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the create_reservation provenance of ticket_ids. The description only reinforces that ids must be UNPAID; baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Pay UNPAID tickets from the account's RegioJet credit" gives a specific verb (pay), resource (tickets) and funding source (account credit), which separates it from create_reservation and cancel_ticket. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It states the entry condition (tickets must be UNPAID) and a procedural requirement (confirm with the user first), and the schema pins ticket ids to create_reservation output. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. what to do for already-paid tickets or when credit is insufficient.

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