Commit prepared operation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the write is 'policy-checked' and requires idempotencyKey, which provides some additional context but does not elaborate on what gets destroyed or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Execute a prepared, policy-checked write') followed by required inputs. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, destructive nature), the description covers the main action and inputs but does not specify return values, success indicators, or sync/async behavior. It's mostly complete but could add a note on what to expect after execution.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter: operation is the 'full prepared operation', confirmOperationHash must match, and idempotencyKey ensures idempotency. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though type details are lacking.

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 tool executes a prepared, policy-checked write. It specifies the required inputs (operation, confirmOperationHash, idempotencyKey). The verb 'execute' and resource 'prepared operation' are precise, and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling prepare tools.

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 implies use after a preparation step but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., corpay_prepare_expense_coding). It lacks exclusions or alternative guidance, relying on the implied context from the tool name.

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