Authorize Agent Spend

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, with openWorldHint true. The description adds context about being a 'spend gate' for authorization but does not detail side effects (e.g., holds, budget deductions). It gives adequate workflow context but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary use case, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys when to use and when not to use.

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 an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description adequately covers the tool's role in the workflow (post-create_intent, pre-side-effect). It does not address error scenarios or failure modes, but is sufficient for agent selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description provides overall context (e.g., 'tenant-bound spend gate') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: authorizing agent spend before side-effecting actions. It specifies the required context (intent_id, capability_token) and the action (tenant-bound spend gate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like paybond_create_spend_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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states 'Use this when an agent has an intent_id and capability_token' and 'Do not use this for creating, funding, or changing intents' with references to alternative tools (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.