Create Cashout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds 'Valores em centavos' (amounts in cents), which is a formatting detail, and 'agora' (now), but does not disclose further behavioral implications like balance requirements or result information. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second provides trigger phrases and the cents note. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 financial tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description provides trigger phrases and amount unit but omits return behavior, prerequisites, or error conditions. Annotations give basic safety signals. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to know what happens after creation.

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 description explicitly states 'Valores em centavos', clarifying that the amount parameter must be provided in cents, which is not directly stated in the schema. However, the other five parameters (pixKey, externalId, pixKeyType, callbackUrl, payoutAccountId) receive no explanatory text, and schema coverage is 0%. Thus the description only partially compensates.

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 'solicita saque' (requests a withdrawal) and provides example user utterances ('solicita um saque de R$X', 'quero sacar R$X') that should trigger it. This distinguishes it from other cashout-related siblings like list_cashouts or cancel_cashout, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: when the user says 'solicita um saque de R$X' or 'quero sacar R$X'. This is a direct usage trigger. It doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., when to use simulate_cashout instead), but the examples are actionable.

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