Create Spend Intent

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing that the intent includes bounded budget, allowed operations, evidence requirements, and settlement review. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the usage instruction and immediately states the alternative, making it efficient and scannable.

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 has 3 parameters, one nested object, and an output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and provides alternative usage. However, it lacks detail on the recognition_proof parameter and does not expand on the body structure beyond high-level features. An output schema exists to cover return values.

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% and the description does not explicitly describe the parameters. It mentions high-level intent features (bounded budget, etc.) which likely map to the body, but does not address idempotency_key or recognition_proof. This leaves the agent with little guidance on parameter semantics.

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 verb (create) and the resource (Paybond spend intent) with specific attributes (bounded budget, allowed operations, evidence requirements, settlement review). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool paybond_authorize_agent_spend by contrasting use cases.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for creating a new spend intent) and when not to (for checking an already funded capability token), and provides the alternative tool (paybond_authorize_agent_spend). This gives clear context and prevents misuse.

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