charge_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavior — immediate one-step charge — and specifies that the card cryptogram comes from the CloudPayments widget. However, it omits other important behavioral context such as response shape, idempotency/duplicate-charge risk, failure modes, or whether the charge is immediately captured.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core behavior first and then lists the essential inputs, earning every word it uses.

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 financial mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 10 parameters, this description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, how it differs from auth_payment/confirm_payment in practice, error behavior, duplicate-charge safeguards, or what downstream actions (void/refund) might be needed.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description only restates the three required inputs (card cryptogram, amount, payer IP) without adding new format, constraints, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific verb ('charge') and resource ('payment'), and the phrase 'one-step payment (immediate charge)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_payment and confirm_payment, which imply a two-step flow. It also names the key inputs needed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need an immediate, one-step charge rather than an authorized-then-confirmed payment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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