charge_authorization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, failure modes, or the non-reversible nature of a charge. The absence of such details is a significant gap for a financial mutation tool.

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, direct sentence: 'Charge a previously authorized card'. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or vague wording. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably under-specified. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain an authorization code), consequences (e.g., the authorization is consumed), or error conditions (e.g., invalid/expired authorization). This incompleteness could lead to incorrect 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 schema descriptions cover all six parameters, so the tool description adds limited value. It does clarify that authorization_code must come from a prior authorization, which is helpful, but it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., email and amount) or any format constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Charge a previously authorized card'. It uses a specific verb ('Charge') and resource ('previously authorized card'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like initialize_transaction (which would authorize) and partial_debit (which would partially debit). The scope is well-defined.

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. It does not mention that it should be used after obtaining an authorization code via initialize_transaction, nor does it exclude cases where partial_debit or deactivate_authorization would be more appropriate. This leaves the selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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