Authorize Agent Spend

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds context about being a 'tenant-bound spend gate' and lists use cases (paid API, vendor action, settlement workflow). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, but could add more detail about failure modes or side effects.

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 concise sentences that front-load the use case and include clear alternatives. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description combined with annotations provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, and parameter context. Output schema is not described, but that is handled by the schema itself.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the 'token' parameter as an optional override versus using stored token. This provides semantic context beyond the schema's description.

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 purpose: authorize agent spend using an intent_id and capability_token before calling side-effecting tools. It specifies what the tool does (authorize spend) and what it is not for (creating/funding/changing intents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like paybond_create_spend_intent and paybond_fund_intent.

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 explicit usage guidance: use when an agent has an intent_id and capability_token and needs a tenant-bound spend gate before side-effecting actions. It explicitly states what not to use it for 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.