workers_tt_buy_confirm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a write operation ('charge'), mentions a constraint ('confirm must be true'), and warns about a 409 error on reuse. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if the quote is expired or invalid, or what the response looks like. The phrase 'solary unchanged' is unclear and adds minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each packed with essential information. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds a critical constraint, and the third provides timing and error context. No filler words. 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), an output schema (unknown content), and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'solary unchanged' means, how to interpret the output, or how to obtain a valid quote. The agent would need to infer critical details from sibling tools or trial and error.

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 compensate. It only addresses the 'confirm' parameter by stating it must be true, which is a useful constraint. The other two parameters ('quote_id', 'group_id') are not explained at all. The description does not clarify the role of 'group_id' or the format of 'quote_id', leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 ('Charge a one-time tt quote') and identifies the resource as a 'tt quote'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'workers_tt_buy_quote' (which likely creates a quote) by implying this is the confirmation step. The verb 'charge' and resource 'quote' are 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 context: 'confirm must be true' is a required setting, and 'Quote lives ~5 min; reuse is 409' warns about expiration and error handling. It implicitly tells the agent to first obtain a quote via workers_tt_buy_quote and then use this tool to charge it. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use information is given, but the constraints are clear.

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