ghl_marketplace_charge

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the endpoint, API version, source, and especially the authentication constraints: Sub-Account token required, OAuth only, Private Integration Tokens rejected, and charges.write scope. It does not restate idempotency or destructive behavior, but those are covered by 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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the operation, then provides endpoint, authentication, and scope details. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no redundant or filler text.

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 billing mutation with a rich nested input schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the critical auth and endpoint context an agent needs. It does not describe the response shape, and there is no output schema, but the tool can still be selected and invoked correctly from the available information.

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%, and every body field is thoroughly described in the nested schema, including appId, meterId, eventId, locationId, companyId, description, units, price, userId, and eventTime. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new wallet charge,' and adds the exact endpoint POST /marketplace/billing/charges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling marketplace operations such as get_charges, delete_charge, and get_specific_charge.

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 important preconditions: it requires a Sub-Account token, only accepts OAuth access tokens, rejects Private Integration Tokens, and needs the charges.write scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_marketplace_get_charges or ghl_marketplace_delete_charge, leaving usage context implied.

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