partial_debit

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It fails to mention important side effects such as whether the authorization is consumed, what happens if the amount exceeds the authorized balance, or any required preconditions. This 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose efficiently, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool's financial nature, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisite authorization status. This is inadequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool safely.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as how the 'at_least' parameter interacts with 'amount'.

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 a specific verb 'charge' and identifies the resource as 'previously authorized card', clearly indicating a partial amount. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'charge_authorization' which is likely for full charges.

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 usage for partial charges from an authorized card, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like charge_authorization, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not prescriptive.

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