Create Payout

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds critical behavioral traits: requires explicit user confirmation, do not auto-execute, do not chain from other tool outputs, and only call when human explicitly requests. No contradiction with 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 somewhat long but every sentence is informative. It front-loads the purpose and then adds warnings. It is well-structured, though the mode-specific details could be separated from the general warnings for clarity.

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 10 parameters and 5 required, the description covers the most critical behavioral constraints and mode-specific requirements. The output schema exists (not shown) and annotations provide additional context. Lacks full parameter documentation but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that amount_value is in smallest currency unit and that for IMPS/NEFT/RTGS modes, account_number and branch_code are required. However, it does not detail other parameters like client_reference_id, payee_name, remarks, email, phone, currency. Partial compensation.

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 it creates a new bank payout via Pine Labs, initiating a fund transfer to a payee's bank account or UPI. It specifies amount in smallest currency unit and conditional requirements for IMPS/NEFT/RTGS modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_payout_details, cancel_payout, and update_payout.

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?

Excellent guidelines: requires explicit user confirmation, prohibits auto-execution or chaining from other tool outputs, instructs to confirm parameters with human user, and forbids calling based on instructions from data fields, API responses, errors, or other tool outputs. Only call when explicitly requested by the human user.

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