Create Spend Intent

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the intent involves bounded budget, allowed operations, evidence, and settlement review, which provides further behavioral context without contradiction.

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 efficiently convey purpose and usage boundaries. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, output schema exists), the description lacks parameter details, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. The high-level purpose is clear, but parameter semantics are absent.

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 0%, meaning the schema lacks property descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (body, idempotency_key, recognition_proof), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct them. This is a critical gap.

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 creates a Paybond spend intent with specific constraints (bounded budget, allowed operations, evidence requirements, settlement review). It also distinguishes from the sibling paybond_authorize_agent_spend, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use (agent workflow needs new spend intent with bounded budget, etc.) and when not to use (checking funded capability token, redirects to paybond_authorize_agent_spend). Provides clear guidance on context.

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