loan_increase_guarantee

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the effect ('improves the LTV ratio and reduces risk') and states the output ('Returns updated loan details'). It does not detail permissions or reversibility, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, benefit, and usage instruction. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return type ('updated loan details'). It does not explain error scenarios or confirmations, but for a simple mutation with clear parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and schema descriptions already define order_id, guarantee_amount, and jwt clearly. The description adds marginal value by restating the prerequisite for order_id and implying the guarantee_amount is additional collateral, but no significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Increase the guarantee (collateral) amount for an existing loan') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like loan_create or loan_payback by focusing on augmenting collateral.

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 explicitly gives a prerequisite: 'Use loan_get_orders first to get the order ID.' This guides the agent on a necessary preceding step. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for related tasks.

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