confirm_payment_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it confirms a payment intent, but does not mention potential side effects like charging the customer, the need for return_url, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary wording. Although it is minimal, it is not verbose; it earns a score slightly above the minimum because it conveys the core purpose without being wordy.

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?

The tool has a simple schema but no output schema and no annotations, and the description is too brief to explain critical behavior such as return values, side effects, or when additional parameters like return_url are required. This is inadequate for a payment confirmation tool.

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%: each parameter (id, return_url, payment_method) has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Confirm' with the resource 'payment intent', clearly identifying the action and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_payment_intent or create_payment_intent. However, it lacks any additional scope or nuance, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and gives no context about prerequisites or workflow. An agent is left without direction on how to choose this tool among the payment-related siblings.

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