bexio Outgoing Payments

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'delete permanently deletes the payment — cannot be undone'. It also discloses non-obvious behavior: for update, the API takes the payment id in the request body, not the URL. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 lengthy but well-organized: it starts with the overall purpose, lists actions with sub-requirements, and uses parenthetical notes. Each sentence adds necessary detail given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly more concise but earns a high score.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all actions, input parameters, constraints, and edge cases. It explains validation rules and per-action requirements thoroughly, making it a complete reference for the tool's usage.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value by summarizing required fields per action, clarifying which fields are allowed or disallowed per payment type, and noting API quirks. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 manages outgoing payments for purchase bills and lists five specific actions (list, get, create, update, delete). It includes the API version and notes that payment ids are UUID strings. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bexio_banking_payments and bexio_bills.

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 explicit context for each action, including required parameters and constraints (e.g., bill must not be a draft for create, amount must not exceed pending_amount, validation on payment types). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the detail is sufficient for an agent to choose the correct action.

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