intl_beneficiary_add

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the SCA flow: polling, fallback, and retry mechanism. It does not disclose authorization requirements or potential side effects, but covers the key behavioral trait of SCA.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, SCA requirement, and polling behavior. It could be slightly more readable by splitting into multiple sentences, but it earns its place without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns upon success (e.g., the created beneficiary). It focuses on the SCA flow but omits the successful response structure, leaving the agent incompletely informed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how the 'wait' parameter controls polling behavior and how 'sca_session_token' binds to a retry. Other parameters are already clear from schema.

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 'Create a new international beneficiary,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'beneficiary_add' by explicitly including 'international'.

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 provides detailed guidance on SCA handling, including default polling behavior (wait=30s), fallback to pending response, and retry via sca_session_token. It does not explicitly compare with siblings but the context implies domestic vs international.

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