beneficiary_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that SCA may be required, describes the default polling (wait=30s), fallback to pending response, and how to proceed with sca_session_show and sca_session_token. It does not mention any side effects beyond creation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence is somewhat long but contains necessary technical detail. It is efficient with no wasted 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?

While the description covers SCA behavior well, it does not describe the return value upon successful creation. Given there is no output schema, the caller would benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., the beneficiary object). This is a notable gap.

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 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds context about the SCA process, explaining the purpose of the 'wait' and 'sca_session_token' parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Create a new SEPA beneficiary', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like beneficiary_list, beneficiary_show, etc., which are for different operations.

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 explains SCA behavior and the polling mechanism, giving guidance on when to use the inline polling versus a two-step flow. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives, or when not to use it.

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