vaultix_create_payout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states 'Create a payout (withdrawal)' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, idempotency, side effects (e.g., reduces balance), or response format. This is inadequate for a financial transaction tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating PIX and bank transfer options, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 complex financial mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, and operational constraints (e.g., minimum amount beyond schema).

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'Amount in cents' (already in schema) and hinting at PIX/bank transfer methods (implied by parameters like 'pix_key' and 'bank_code'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a payout') and specifies the methods ('via PIX or bank transfer') with the amount unit ('Amount in cents'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_get_payout' (read) and 'vaultix_cancel_payout' (cancel), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'vaultix_create_charge'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a balance or customer), exclusions (e.g., cannot create if insufficient funds), or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'vaultix_create_charge' for incoming payments).

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