intl_beneficiary_remove

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

With no annotations, the description adequately explains SCA requirements, inline polling, and fallback to pending response, but does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletes or irreversibility.

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 with clear front-loading of purpose, and every sentence adds value without 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?

The description lacks return value details; with no output schema, it should describe the response structure (e.g., success vs pending) beyond mentioning a structured pending response.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds SCA context but no additional meaning beyond the 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 'Remove an international beneficiary' with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like beneficiary_add or intl_beneficiary_update.

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 context on SCA handling and polling behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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