record_credit_ladder_repayment

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the deterministic progression table (1→$25, 3→$50, 6→$100, 10→$250 plus graduation), the refusal condition after default, and that underwriting takes over post-graduation. It stops short of duplicate/idempotency behavior — a second call for the same repayment appears to advance the ladder again, which is the highest-risk ambiguity for a "record" tool — and says nothing about auth or return values.

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker, then purpose, then state machine, then guardrails — no sentence is filler. The arrow notation compresses five threshold/limit pairs into one readable line.

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?

For a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers progression and refusal but omits what a call returns and how repeated calls for the same repayment are handled — the agent cannot tell whether the operation is idempotent or whether state changes are reversible. Given the caller is being made responsible ("only call it for a repayment that actually happened"), the missing dedupe/confirmation story is a real gap.

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% and the single parameter `wallet` has no description, so the description must compensate for the format entirely. It only says "a wallet's ladder," leaving unresolved whether this is an address, an agent id, or an internal identifier — an agent must guess to construct a valid call.

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?

"[WRITE] Record one successful repayment against a wallet's ladder" states a specific verb (record), a specific resource (ladder repayment), and the write nature in the first token. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_credit_ladder (read), start_credit_ladder (open), and get_repayment_incentive_ladder (inspect incentives) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — "Only call it for a repayment that actually happened" — plus a hard exclusion, "Refuses after a default." It does not name the sibling to consult first (e.g. get_credit_ladder to confirm ladder state), so the routing back to a read tool is left to inference.

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