Post Instances Payouts Stellar Authorize

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds nothing beyond that. For a money-moving authorization step it says nothing about what gets authorized, whether it is reversible, or what side effects occur on success.

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?

Three words with no wasted filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose an agent could act on.

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?

A destructive-adjacent, open-world financial authorization with a nested request body, 67% undocumented parameters, and no output schema demands far more description than this. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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 33% and the description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate. The critical wallet_id vs sender_wallet_address exclusivity and the idempotency key semantics are carried only by the schema, and the required quote_id is left unexplained.

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?

"Authorize Token Stellar" restates the tool name (Post...PayoutsStellarAuthorize) almost word for word without saying what authorizing a Stellar token actually does in a payout flow. It gives no way to distinguish it from the sibling PostV1InstancesPayoutsStellar, which appears to be the adjacent step.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this, what precondition (e.g., an existing quote from PostV1InstancesQuotes) must hold, or which sibling performs the alternative. The agent must infer the position of this tool in the payout sequence entirely on its own.

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