create_outgoing_payment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond confirming a create operation, which is consistent with the annotations. There is no contradiction, but also no added disclosure about permissions, side effects, or failure modes.

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 short, front-loaded single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a title-like summary, though it adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 the complexity of 34 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall purpose in the payment workflow, what the response looks like, or how it differs from related tools like create_payment. The rich schema helps with parameter selection but cannot replace missing high-level context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 34 parameters. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 action ('Create') on a specific resource ('Outgoing Payment'), which is clear and direct. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like create_payment or update_outgoing_payment, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusion criteria. The schema provides parameter constraints, but that does not constitute usage guidelines for tool selection.

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