wapupay_provision_account

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it calls the AQUA backend, stores the key locally (0o600), never returns the raw key, only a masked preview. It also explains idempotency (no-op if key exists) and the backend's key invalidation policy. This provides comprehensive behavioral understanding.

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 comprehensive and front-loaded with the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering prerequisites, behavior, and edge cases. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but remains clear 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 complexity (setup tool with prerequisites, idempotency, security) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, prerequisites, behavioral details, and return format (masked preview). It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema covers the email parameter (format email, description about session authorization). The description adds context that the email must be from a completed JAN3 login flow, which is valuable beyond the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of the parameter's role.

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 verb 'Provision' and the resource 'WapuPay API key', and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that this is a prerequisite for other wapupay tools. It also explains the link to the user's JAN3 account.

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 says when to use ('when the user wants WapuPay but has no API key set') and details prerequisites (prior JAN3 login). It also indicates that calling when already configured is a no-op, implying it's unnecessary. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use beyond the no-op case.

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