set_org_payout_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses access restrictions (admin/owner, step-up gating), parameter constraints (active wallet, null to clear), and parts of the response (recovery.status, active_wallet_count, next_actions). It does not describe idempotency or side effects, but for a mutation tool, the provided information is quite helpful and goes beyond the schema.

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 single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, access restrictions, parameter usage, and response hints. There is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the operation, preconditions, parameter semantics, response fields, and gating. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to perform the action correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds value by specifying that wallet_address must be active and null clears the default, which is not inferred from the schema alone. This provides meaningful additional guidance for the agent.

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 action: 'Set or clear an organization's default payout wallet for tenant priced routes'. It specifies the resource (organization's payout wallet), the operation (set or clear), and the context (tenant priced routes). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, even without explicit differentiation.

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 clear context on who can use it ('Admin/owner-only + step-up gated') and conditions ('wallet_address must already be an active wallet linked to the org; pass null to clear the explicit default'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but given the sibling list, no other tool directly does this, so the guidance is sufficient.

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