create_payout_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the genuinely useful two-phase preview/confirm protocol and the confirmToken requirement, which an agent would not infer from the schema alone. It does not explain what the preview contains or whether a created payout run can be cancelled or reversed, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the draft/no-money-moves clarification is front-loaded and the call protocol follows immediately. Every clause carries essential decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema and no required parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return-then-confirm flow, which it does well. Missing only scope detail — what a payout run encompasses (which commissions/partners) — for a destructive, money-adjacent operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the dependency between the two parameters — confirmToken comes from a prior preview call and confirm must be paired with it. It stops short of describing token lifetime or what happens if confirm is sent without a valid token.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a payout run') and immediately scopes it as 'a draft: it is not executed, no money moves,' then clarifies that the confirmed second call does execute. That resolves an otherwise confusing tension, though it never differentiates this tool from payout-adjacent siblings like approve_due_commissions or settle_commission.

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?

Gives explicit call sequencing: first call without confirm returns a preview plus confirmToken, second call with confirm: true and that token performs the change. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when a payout run is preferable to settling commissions another way, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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