firestarter_payouts

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

The annotations only declare idempotent and destructive hints, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: earnings wait in escrow and selling pauses only under dynamic thresholds, Stripe locks the country permanently and a wrong one requires discarding the account, provider reach is explicitly uncertain, and unsupported countries produce a clear 422. This far exceeds what the 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 long but front-loaded with the core distinction and each major topic—status check, setup, thresholds, provider reach, country lock, eligibility routing—earns its place. It loses a point for density and mild redundancy, such as "no client-side ineligible-country list" appearing alongside "do not pre-filter on the seller's behalf," which say similar things in one unbroken block.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description provides almost everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: how to check status, how to set up a method, provider-specific parameter requirements, error behavior, permanent country-lock consequences, and the right sibling tool for eligibility checks. No meaningful invocation context is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: country is only required for Stripe unless already recorded at registration, the API refuses to guess because Stripe locks the country permanently, country is irrelevant for PayPal, omitting provider means status check, and there is no client-side ineligible-country list. These details materially change how an agent should fill 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Manage seller payout method," and immediately disambiguates scope: "this is how a seller RECEIVES money, not permission to sell." It distinguishes the no-argument status mode from the provider setup mode and even routes country-specific checks to firestarter_payout_eligibility, so it is clearly separated from siblings like firestarter_payment_method and firestarter_connect_payouts.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool: "Call with no arguments to check current status. Pass `provider` to set up a new method." It also gives an exclusion rule—"Do not promise either rail for a country without checking"—and names the alternative tool, firestarter_payout_eligibility, for pre-checking a country. This leaves little to inference.

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