Post Instances Payouts Documents

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: SWIFT submissions resume compliance review, other rails do not change payout status or tracking, the description field is ignored off-SWIFT, and resubmission replaces the prior document. It does not mention the Idempotency-Key retry semantics, which is a gap given idempotentHint=false, but nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then rail-specific behavior in two dense follow-on sentences. No filler, though the sentences are long and could be split for faster scanning.

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 mutation tool with a nested request body, no output schema, and only partial schema coverage, the description covers what happens on each rail, the replace-on-resubmit semantics, and when it is mandatory. Missing only retry/idempotency guidance and path-parameter context.

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 low (25%) and the description only adds meaning for the description field (written to the SWIFT memo, ignored on other rails) – which the schema already states. It says nothing about instance_id, id, transaction_document_id, transaction_document_file, or the Idempotency-Key parameter, leaving those reliant on the schema alone.

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: 'Submit a compliance document for a payout.' It also names the affected resource type (payout) and the rails involved, which no sibling tool does, so an agent can distinguish it from the onboarding-document and RFI tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly encodes when-to-use behavior per rail: SWIFT payouts 'waiting for documents require it' and submission resumes review, while other rails may attach optionally 'while the payout is processing or completed.' The requirement vs optional distinction is exactly the guidance an agent needs.

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