wafle_gateways_test

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

Discloses provider-specific API calls and states it is read-only on the upstream provider, adding value beyond the annotations. Does not detail local side effects, but annotations already cover idempotency and read-only hints, so the added context is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the main action, followed by provider details and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides good context on what it does, when to use it, and provider-specific behavior. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but the scope is appropriately covered.

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 has one required parameter (gateway_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description indirectly implies gateway_id by referring to wafle_gateways_create/update, but does not explicitly define it. This partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a live credential test against the gateway provider, with provider-specific behavior (MP, Stripe, transfer). This distinguishes it from siblings like wafle_gateways_create or wafle_gateways_list.

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 says to use after wafle_gateways_create or wafle_gateways_update for rotated creds, providing clear timing context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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