refresh_credits

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

Annotations only mark it as not read-only and not destructive, so the description carries the burden of explaining the mutation. It explains that credits are issued, that credits_used reports consumption since last refresh (defaulting to 0), and enumerates all return fields. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's effects without contradicting annotations.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: purpose, applicability, prerequisites, and return fields are all present. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Slightly more concise could be tighter, but it is well-structured.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the operation's purpose, prerequisites, and the full set of return fields. It explains the meaning of monthly_limit (0 means unlimited). It doesn't address error cases or rate limits, but those are not commonly expected. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 each parameter fully. The description adds a bit of context (e.g., that credits_used defaults to 0, which the schema also states) and clarifies the response fields, but it doesn't significantly augment the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Issue a compatibility credit batch to a quota-governed managed runtime.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the large sibling set by stating it exists for non-Algenta managed plans, while Algenta editions are unmetered. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This exists for non-Algenta managed plans; Algenta editions are unmetered and do not need execution credits.' It also states prerequisites (API-key identity and registered device_id). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the exclusion of Algenta plans is a clear usage boundary.

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