create_withdrawal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the action (send funds) and the required configuration key, which warns the agent about a potential failure point. It does not mention response format or reversibility, but the core mutating behavior is clear.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key prerequisite. Every word is useful, no repetition or filler.

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 tool is relatively simple (4 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the main purpose and the critical prerequisite. It lacks information about return value or side effects, but the schema and action clarity compensate. Without annotations, a brief configuration note adds completeness.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (amount, currency, destinationAddress, description). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as 'external' wallet address. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 begins with a specific verb + resource: 'Create a withdrawal request' and clarifies the destination as 'an external wallet address.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_withdrawal (which reads) and the payment/invoice creation tools.

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 clearly states the use case (sending funds to an external wallet) and mentions a prerequisite (INVENTPAY_WITHDRAWAL_KEY) that must be configured. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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