Update Payout

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds (WRITE) and details about being an official API integration, plus a caution against automated calls. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but adds value beyond 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 concise with 6 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage conditions, parameter format, and safety. It is complete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description explains schedule_at format (ISO 8601 UTC) but does not explicitly describe payment_reference_id, though its name is self-explanatory. It partially compensates for the lack of schema 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 updates the scheduled date of a payout, specifying the verb (update) and resource (payout). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_payout or create_payout, but the action is distinct enough.

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 states the precondition that only payouts with status SCHEDULED can be updated and requires the new date in ISO 8601 UTC format. It also includes a safety guideline against calling based on data fields. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the conditions are clear.

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