offsets__certify_disbursement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses idempotency on batch_id, that only newly-accrued proceeds are certified, and that it produces a tamper-evident record. It does not mention required permissions or the exact output format, but is fairly transparent.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the action and context about the offsets namespace. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's purpose and behavior but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the certified batch details). The agent may need to infer from other tools in the namespace.

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 only one parameter (batch_id) and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on what batch_id represents or its expected format (e.g., a string ID). The agent must infer from context, which is adequate but not optimal.

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 it freezes the disbursement schedule into a certified, tamper-evident batch. It uses specific verbs ('freeze', 'certify') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'offsets__verify_disbursement' and 'offsets__disbursement_schedule'.

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 good context on when to use: for certifying a disbursement batch before CEO executes Stripe transfers. It mentions idempotency and 'never disbursed twice', but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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