set_payout_method

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 the available payout channels and the email requirement, plus the 'coming soon' status for USDC. However, it does not describe side effects, whether the method overrides a previous setting, or any verification/authorization needs, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a bullet list for the three methods. No words are wasted, and the conditional email requirement is conveyed efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential choice of methods and the conditional requirement. It lacks some contextual details, such as the relationship to cash_out or what happens to existing settings, but it is still sufficient for an agent to successfully invoke the tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving human-readable payout options (Venmo, PayPal, gift cards, etc.) and noting that usdc_base is 'coming soon', which enriches the schema's raw parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with the verb 'Set' and the resource 'payout method', and enumerates the three available methods. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like cash_out, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.

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 by listing the valid methods and noting that email is required when method is 'tremendous'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or reference alternatives, but the method list and conditional requirement give sufficient guidance for a simple setter.

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