investec_card_execute_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'simulate', hinting at no side effects, but does not disclose required permissions, rate limits, whether state changes, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for an agent.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return value, side effects, or error behavior. For a simulation tool that may produce complex results, this is a significant gap. Annotations are also absent, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds context by framing the parameters as part of a simulation against the card's code, which enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 ('simulate'), resource ('card's code'), and purpose ('test the code logic'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like investec_card_get_code and investec_card_publish_code.

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 for testing code logic but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternative tools (e.g., investec_card_get_code for reading code).

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