Use payment sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers unusually strong content: card-number acceptance restricted to Stripe's published test list, declines exposing both code and decline_code, and deterministic replay given the same seed and call order. The notable gap is that 'reset' is a clearly destructive operation and nothing warns about what it wipes or that it is irreversible.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation set and then layered with constraints in descending order of importance. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the title or the schema.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested chaos object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers behavior and sequencing well but omits the chaos/testing-failure surface and any notion of result shape or pagination for list. An agent can invoke the common paths correctly but would be guessing on the testing and query-modifier parameters.

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?

At 50% schema coverage across 10 parameters, the description compensates partially: it explains the semantics of card and sandbox_id and ties each verb to the action enum. It says nothing about chaos (a nested object of deliberate misbehaviour), limit, fields, currency, reference, or amount, so several parameters remain documented only, or not at all, in the 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 opening clause names the resource (payment sandbox) and enumerates every supported operation (charge, refund, list, get, reset), which maps directly onto the action enum. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like sandbox_create and invalid_values, which are not sandbox-payment operations.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite and ordering rule: 'Use it after sandbox_create, with that sandbox's id.' That is concrete routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., against live payments, or when invalid_values / generate_test_data is the right sibling), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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