Add payment route allowed sender

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the account must be Australian (BSB format), and does not warn about duplicate-whitelist behavior or what happens on re-add despite non-idempotency being flagged.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero padding. Nothing needs trimming.

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 five-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich destructive/non-idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential what-and-where. Minor gap: it doesn't note duplicate handling or the enabled default, which matter for a non-idempotent whitelist operation.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds domain framing (BSB/account number are Australian banking identifiers) but no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (whitelist) and resource (an Australian bank account identified by BSB/account number) against a target (an AUD payment route). This clearly separates it from sibling listing/updating tools like list_route_whitelist and update_route_whitelist_account, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'to pay into an AUD payment route' hints at intent, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus update_route_whitelist_account or register_route_payid, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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