firestarter_withdraw_wallet

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint:true and idempotentHint:false. The description goes far beyond by explaining the non-idempotency in detail (each call is independent, retries withdraw twice), and how to resolve uncertain outcomes via firestarter_wallet_balance. It also warns about the spendable-only constraint. This is substantial added value over the 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 longer than average but every sentence is purposeful. It front-loads the core action, then adds the spendable split, minimum, and the non-idempotency warning. Structure is logical, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value. It is verbose but not bloated.

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 non-idempotent, destructive financial operation, the description covers all necessary ground: purpose, prerequisites, eligibility, minimum, risk of retries, and how to verify success. It references related tools (connect_payouts, wallet_balance) and explains behavior comprehensively. No output schema exists, but the description explains how to confirm the outcome.

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% and includes the minimum and unit. The description reinforces the $1.00 minimum and adds the critical constraint that only the spendable balance is withdrawable, which directly informs how to choose the amount_cents. It also implies checking wallet_balance first. While not adding syntax, it adds practical validation guidance.

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 ('Cash out'), a resource ('unused drop-wallet balance'), and a destination ('connected Stripe payout account'), and even names the prerequisite tool (firestarter_connect_payouts). It also differentiates from related siblings like 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?

It provides strong context on when to use the tool: after connecting payouts, and it references firestarter_wallet_balance to identify the spendable amount. It also clarifies what cannot be withdrawn (reserved funds). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives like 'use firestarter_fund_wallet for depositing' or 'do not use this for refunds', but the context is embedded well enough for an agent to infer.

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