charge_recurring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., payment processing, irrevocability), required subscription state, or what happens on success or failure. This is insufficient for a charged operation.

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 a single, economical sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is zero waste—every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It omits return values, error conditions, and any necessary context like whether a charge is idempotent or requires an active subscription, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameter meanings: amount, currency, and subscription_id each have concise descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Charge a recurring subscription' uses a specific verb ('charge') and a clear resource ('recurring subscription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_recurring and order-related tools. It unambiguously states the tool's action.

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 implies when to use the tool (to charge a recurring subscription), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like create_recurring or refund_order. There is no mention of preconditions or exclusions.

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