create_payout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool creates a payout and sends funds, but omits critical side-effect details for a financial operation: that it triggers a real transfer, is likely irreversible, may be asynchronous, and could require approvals or funds. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, provides a brief explanatory clause, and includes the endpoint. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity — 7 parameters, nested oneOf payment methods, and no output schema — the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to choose among payment methods, what the return state might be, or that this is a real financial transaction. The schema carries most of the burden, but the description should add behavioral context for safe and correct agent use.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and does not compensate for the uncovered parameters (e.g., idempotency_key behavior is explained in schema only). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Create'), the resource ('Payout'), and the scope ('sending funds to a Recipient'). It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which reinforces the operation. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_payouts and create_payin.

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 clear context: use this tool to send funds to a recipient by creating a payout. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose statement makes the primary usage obvious. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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