firestarter_connect_payouts

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that earnings accrue without Stripe, that payouts require this, that an onboarding link is returned, and that the tool is idempotent if already set up. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and uses four sentences that each contribute distinct value (purpose, context, behavior, usage trigger, idempotency, parameter note). It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the return value (Stripe onboarding link), when to use it, the idempotent behavior, and the optional country parameter. It does not need to detail return formats since no output schema exists, but this is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides a 100% descriptive coverage for the only parameter ('country') with full details. The description merely repeats the optionality ('Optionally pass the owner's country...') without adding new semantic meaning. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not elevate above it.

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 states the tool's function: 'Connect a Stripe payout account so a community-market owner can WITHDRAW their accrued earnings.' It uses a specific verb+resource (connect payout account) and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying that payouts require Stripe while earnings accrue without it, and that this tool specifically returns an onboarding link.

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 explicit usage triggers: 'Use when an owner asks to get paid, cash out, set up payouts, or connect Stripe.' It also notes the idempotent behavior ('If already fully set up, it just says so.'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., firestarter_payouts or firestarter_withdraw_wallet) to disambiguate, so it's clear but not fully exclusions-based.

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