paydirt_begin_setup

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: it returns authorization_url, session_id, and finish_arguments immediately, and it never launches a browser, sleeps, or polls. This gives the agent concrete expectations about the tool's execution and side effects, which the annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the critical usage context. It avoids redundancy and every sentence contributes meaningful information: when to use, what to pass, and what to expect in return.

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 complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is complete: it explains the scenario, the required pre-step, the inputs to gather, the immediate return values, and the absence of blocking behavior. The output schema is not included but is available separately, so no essential information 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond saying to pass 'app identity, use cases, and subscription provider,' which loosely maps to the schema fields but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 purpose: initiating Paydirt setup for a new user, machine, or iOS app before authentication. It uses a specific verb ('begin setup') and differentiates from siblings by specifying the exact condition (authentication not completed) and the expected outputs.

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 use the tool ('when installing Paydirt for a new user, machine, or iOS app and authentication has not been completed') and provides a prerequisite ('Inspect the host first'). It also implicitly distinguishes from later steps by mentioning 'finish_arguments' and stating what it does not do (launches browser, sleeps, polls), helping the agent decide when this is the right action.

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