Post Instances Customers Wallets Yield Disable

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real value on top: the state machine (disabling → redemption → fee collection → disabled), the webhook side effect (wallet.update), and the shape of the response. It stops short of saying whether the call is async and must be polled, or what happens if yield is already disabled.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then return-value caveat, then the transition sequence. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what comes back and what side effects occur, which covers most of what's needed for a mutation. The missing piece is parameter-level guidance and retry semantics, which matter here because idempotentHint is false while an Idempotency-Key header exists.

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 only 50% — `id` and `instance_id` carry no descriptions, only length/example constraints. The description never mentions any of the four parameters, so it does not compensate for the gap; an agent gets no clarification that `id` is the wallet identifier in the yield-disable path, nor any hint tying Idempotency-Key to safe retries of this non-idempotent call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Turns yield off for the wallet.' It also distinguishes the return value ('Returns the wallet, not the yield object'), which separates it from the sibling YieldEnable and the GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYield read endpoints.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is the inverse of PostV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYieldEnable. There is no explicit statement about prerequisites (must yield already be enabled?), no pointer to the Enable sibling as the alternative, and no guidance on when to prefer reading yield status first.

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