card_report_stolen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly states irreversibility and SCA requirements, including detailed polling behavior and fallback mechanism. However, it does not mention other potential side effects (e.g., card blocking, notifications, replacement process) that might be expected for a destructive irreversible action.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first immediately states the core purpose and irreversibility. The second efficiently covers the SCA handling without unnecessary details. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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 explains the SCA flow well but omits the response structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs to know what the tool returns on success or pending SCA. It mentions 'structured pending response' but does not specify its contents or how to interpret it. Error conditions or return values are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default wait value (30s) and how the wait and sca_session_token parameters interact with the SCA flow, providing practical usage context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action ('report a physical card as stolen') and underscores irreversibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like card_lock, card_discard, and card_report_lost by specifying 'stolen' for a physical card, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on SCA handling (inline polling with default wait, fallback to pending response, and continuation via sca_session_show + sca_session_token). However, it does not explicitly compare to similar sibling tools like card_report_lost or card_lock, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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