auth_payment

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 does disclose the single most important behavior—funds are blocked, not charged, until confirmed. But it omits life-cycle facts such as whether the hold expires, that void_payment releases the hold, and what the call returns, leaving a meaningful transparency gap.

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 short sentences with the core concept front-loaded: 'Two-step payment (authorize/hold)' followed by one clarifying sentence. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes distinct 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?

For a mutating payment tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but misses flow context: what the response contains (the payment ID needed by confirm_payment or void_payment) and the consequence of never confirming. Given the sibling list includes confirm_payment and void_payment, this follow-up knowledge matters for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; Amount is already documented as the authorization (holding) amount and CardCryptogramPacket as the card cryptogram.

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 action (authorize/hold) and the resource (payment funds): 'Two-step payment (authorize/hold). Funds are blocked but not charged until confirmed.' The wording positions it as the first stage of a two-step flow, semantically distinguishing it from siblings like charge_payment and confirm_payment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'two-step payment' framing implies this tool is for flows that require an authorization hold, and 'not charged until confirmed' hints that confirm_payment is the follow-up step. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus charge_payment, confirm_payment, or void_payment, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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