Record payout

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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), while the description supplies the real behavioral payload: no money moves on the default path, x_money is a stub that always refuses, the deal is marked paid, and the first call writes nothing. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct load: what the tool does and its provider modes, the side effect on the deal, and the two-step protocol. The two-step rule is front-loaded as a labeled block so it is not missed.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering the workflow, the description covers the critical path well (side effects, preview semantics, confirmation). It stops short of stating permission/authorization requirements or what happens on duplicate payouts for the same deal, which would matter for a financial write.

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 only 50%, and the description fills the biggest gap by explaining the provider parameter's two modes and the confirm_token contract (omit first, pass with identical args second). It also ties 'reference' to the payout flow, though 'amount' and 'note' semantics beyond the schema are not addressed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Records that a verified deal was paid, via a payout provider') and immediately scopes it against siblings by detailing provider behavior, so an agent can distinguish it from list_payouts/list_payout_providers without opening any schema.

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?

It states exactly when each provider applies ('manual' is a ledger entry only and does NOT move money; 'x_money' always refuses), and gives explicit operating instructions for the two-step preview/approval flow including 'only after they approve call again with the same arguments plus confirm_token.'

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