confirm_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavior—this tool charges a held amount—and notes that partial confirmation is possible. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to the remainder of an authorization after a partial confirm.

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: 'Confirm an authorized payment' immediately names the operation, and the parenthetical 'charge the held amount' explains the mechanism. Every word adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 three-parameter tool, the description conveys the core operation and the partial-amount option. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the required prior state beyond 'authorized,' the effect of partial confirmation on the remaining authorization, or what response or next steps the agent should expect.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context by clarifying that 'Amount' represents the held amount being charged and explicitly introduces the partial-amount possibility, which reinforces the schema's meaning.

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 the action: confirming an authorized payment and charging the held amount, with the optional nuance of a partial amount. This distinguishes it from authorization, void, and refund operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Confirm an authorized payment' establishes the intended context: this tool is for payments that have already been authorized and have a held amount. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives like void_payment or refund_payment.

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