vaultix_create_charge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the amount format (cents) but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, response format, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether the charge is immediately processed). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key details (payment methods, amount format). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the most critical information for initial understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), response structure, error cases, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the amount unit (cents) and providing a currency example, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, validation rules, or business logic beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new payment charge'), specifying the payment methods (PIX, Credit Card, or Boleto) and currency context (Brazilian Real). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_create_customer' or 'vaultix_create_refund' by focusing on charges, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'vaultix_create_payment_link'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vaultix_create_payment_link' for payment links or 'vaultix_create_refund' for refunds. The description lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information.

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