charge_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'charge' and does not explain idempotency, error handling, monetary consequences, or required permissions, which is especially risky for a financial mutation tool.

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, four-word sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the action, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

Given that this is a financial transaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify what the response looks like, failure modes, or whether the amount is in the default currency, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the token concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to complete 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 uses a specific verb 'charge' with a clear resource 'saved card token', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_token and query_transaction. There is no ambiguity about the tool's core 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a previously created token. It is purely declarative, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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