Authorize Agent Spend

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds that it creates a 'tenant-bound spend gate' and is used before side-effecting tools, but does not detail side effects or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys purpose and usage boundaries.

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?

Output schema exists. Description covers when to use and alternatives, but lacks detail on return values, error handling, or behavior of parameters. Adequate but could be more complete given tool complexity.

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 0%; description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (token, intent_id, operation, requested_spend_cents). Parameter names give some hint, but no details on format, defaults, or semantics beyond 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 that the tool authorizes a spend gate when an agent has an intent_id and capability_token, before calling side-effecting tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying not to use for creating/funding intents.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when agent has intent_id and capability_token, before side-effecting calls) and when not to (for creating/funding intents), and names alternatives (paybond_create_spend_intent, paybond_fund_intent).

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