loan_increase_guarantee

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it reveals the preview behavior without confirm=true, requires confirm=true only after user agreement, and states that updated loan details are returned. This is especially valuable because destructiveHint=true alone would not tell the agent about the two-phase confirmation requirement.

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 compact and front-loaded: the verb, resource, and purpose appear first, followed by the critical confirmation workflow. Every sentence contributes actionable information, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return value, the required precursor call, and the user-consent confirmation flow. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and how to sequence the call safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context on top: it explains the source of order_id ('Use loan_get_orders first') and clarifies the role of confirm (preview vs. execution). It does not need to repeat parameter definitions already fully described in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Increase the guarantee (collateral) amount for an existing loan.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like loan_create and loan_payback, and it also specifies the expected outcome: 'Returns updated loan details.'

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 gives a clear prerequisite and sequencing instruction: 'Use loan_get_orders first to get the order ID' and explains the two-step confirmation flow. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative loan tools, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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