request_create_virtual_card

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

Without annotations, the description transparently discloses SCA behavior: potential requirement for SCA, default polling with wait parameter, fallback to pending response, and use of sca_session_token for retry. Additional context like rate limits or side effects is omitted, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds the critical SCA usage detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 does not mention the return format or what the response contains (e.g., card details, request status). With no output schema, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output. Some context about side effects or next steps is missing.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the SCA flow for the 'wait' parameter, the role of 'sca_session_token', and the purpose of 'note' for approvers. This compensates for the baseline and provides actionable context.

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 'Create a virtual card request' and distinguishes from siblings like 'request_create_flash_card' by focusing on virtual card specifics. The purpose is specific and 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 explicit guidance on SCA handling: polling inline by default, fallback response, and how to continue with sca_session_show+sca_session_token. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., flash card) but still gives clear usage context.

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