firestarter_withdraw_wallet

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: each call is an independent withdrawal attempt (non-idempotent), double-calling withdraws twice, and completed withdrawals reduce the balance. This aligns with destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: false, providing deeper safety awareness than the annotations alone.

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?

Four substantial sentences, each earning its place: purpose, constraint, minimum, non-idempotency warning, and error recovery. The information density is high and the structure is logical, with warnings front-loaded.

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 destructive, non-idempotent financial tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, eligibility constraints, minimum amount, double-withdrawal risk, and post-error behavior. It is exceptionally complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter amount_cents, which is already well-described with minimum and format. The description adds the $1.00 minimum (redundant) and explains that withdrawals are limited to spendable balance, but this is more about the account state than parameter semantics. No new parameter-level meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 verb 'cash out' and the resource 'drop-wallet balance' with the destination 'connected Stripe payout account'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing firestarter_connect_payouts and firestarter_wallet_balance, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: check firestarter_wallet_balance first if unsure about spendable balance, sets a $1.00 minimum, and warns against deduplication assumptions. It also gives clear do-not-call-again instructions on timeout/error, referencing an alternative tool for verification.

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