set_org_payout_wallet

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 endpoint method (PATCH), authorization requirements (admin/owner, step-up), precondition (wallet must be active and linked), and behavior of passing null. It also mentions response fields (recovery.status, active_wallet_count, next_actions). This is sufficiently transparent for a mutation tool.

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 concise, packing necessary information (purpose, prerequisites, behavior, response) into a few sentences without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and endpoint, making it easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the response contents. It mentions prerequisites, required parameters, and the effect of null. For a 2-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could optionally mention error scenarios.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the condition on wallet_address ('must already be an active wallet linked to the org') and clarifies that null clears the default. This provides important context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 action: 'Set or clear an organization's default payout wallet'. It specifies the resource (organization's default payout wallet) and the verb (set/clear), and includes the endpoint path. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'link_wallet_to_organization' which links a wallet without setting it as default.

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 on when to use: 'Admin/owner-only + step-up gated' and prerequisites like 'wallet_address must already be an active wallet linked to the org; pass null to clear'. It does not explicitly state alternatives, but the instruction is specific enough that an agent can infer usage. Could be improved by contrasting with 'link_wallet_to_organization'.

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