sibs_capture_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool captures an authorized payment and supports full or partial amounts, but it does not mention side effects such as settlement, irreversibility, capture windows, or idempotency.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the optionality of the amount is stated directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple three-parameter capture operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits useful context such as expected response format, amount constraints relative to the authorized amount, and any time limits on capture. This is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description mostly repeats the schema's 'omit for full capture' semantics and minor-units detail, offering little additional parameter-level meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: capture a previously authorized SIBS payment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sibs_refund_payment and sibs_cancel_payment, which operate at different stages of the payment lifecycle.

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 provides clear operational guidance on when to use full capture versus partial capture by omitting or specifying the amount. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'previously authorized' phrasing situates usage after authorization.

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