card_update_limits

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 transparently explains the SCA polling mechanism (default wait=30s), fallback to structured pending response, and the retry flow with session token. It does not mention idempotency or potential side effects beyond limits update, but covers the main behavioral nuance.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose concisely. The second sentence packs essential SCA behavior details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and it is 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?

Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the SCA flow. It lacks details on what happens after a successful update (e.g., return values or confirmation), but the primary complexity (SCA handling) is well addressed. Minor gap in describing post-update behavior.

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 interaction of the 'wait' and 'sca_session_token' parameters in the SCA flow, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. Individual limit parameters are well-described in the schema, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 'Update a card's spending limits', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like card_update_nickname, card_update_options, and card_update_restrictions by focusing on limits.

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 explains when SCA is required and provides detailed guidance on the polling behavior and two-step flow using sca_session_show and sca_session_token. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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