manage_extra_account

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that raising slots charges the saved card, that extra_accounts is a desired TOTAL with 0 removing everything, that 3D Secure or a decline returns a payment link and adds nothing, and that the operation is Owner-scoped with billing:write. The annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces rather than repeats them; only the exact consequence for existing slots when lowering (proration/refund behavior) is unstated.

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 text is front-loaded with the operation, then the financial warning, then permissions, then the workflow, then the failure mode — a sensible ordering. The telegraphic style ('MONEY:', 'billing:write', 'add 20+ at a time') packs a lot in but reads as compressed shorthand in places, slightly taxing on first parse.

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 destructive, money-moving mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers cost, permissions, the quote-confirm handshake, the preview_id and expected_ anti-staleness fields, and the 3DS/decline outcome. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to warn the user before spending money.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it defines extra_accounts as a desired TOTAL rather than a delta, explains the confirm/preview_id pairing as a two-phase protocol, and identifies the expected_ fields as values copied from the quote (a guard against stale state). Only workspace_id is left undefined, which is a minor omission against seven parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb set (buy, raise, lower, remove) applied to a precise resource (Agency extra-account slots), and the action=set/TOTAL semantics make the operation unambiguous. It never names the adjacent sibling tools (upgrade_subscription, downgrade_subscription, manage_workspace_member) that an agent might confuse it with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 prescribes the exact call sequence: call without confirm to obtain a quote and preview_id, then after user agreement call with confirm=true plus the preview_id and expected_ fields. It also states prerequisites (Owner only, billing:write) and a batch constraint (add 20+ at a time), leaving nothing to inference about when to use which mode.

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