tochka_subscription_charge

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

The description mentions 'recurring payment debit' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or consequences. With 'openWorldHint' annotation, the tool may have unstated behaviors, but the description adds no clarification. The minimal text fails to inform the agent of what happens beyond the obvious.

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 concise (two lines of purpose and a short argument list). It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bulleted lists for clarity). Still, it achieves conciseness without being terse.

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 complexity of a financial operation and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks details about return values, error cases, or side effects. The 'openWorldHint' annotation further suggests missing context, but the description does not fill the gaps. This is incomplete for safe agent usage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Subscription operation ID' and 'Charge amount' provide basic semantics beyond the schema titles. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not specify formats, constraints, or how the amount is applied (e.g., currency, precision). This is barely adequate.

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 explicitly states 'Charge a subscription (recurring payment debit).' The verb 'charge' and the resource 'subscription' are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tochka_subscription_create' or 'tochka_subscription_status' which have different actions. The purpose is 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 only says 'Charge a subscription' with no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'tochka_subscription_with_receipt' or other subscription tools. No context about prerequisites or cases where it should not be used is provided.

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