Save beneficiary

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile, idempotency, and destructive hint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: validation happens 'exactly as a transfer on that network would be,' duplicate saves return and refresh the existing beneficiary, and archived beneficiaries are revived.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Each sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, validation guarantee, and idempotent upsert/revive behavior.

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 complex 27-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is saved, how validation works, and what happens on duplicate or archived accounts. The schema carries the parameter detail and annotations carry the safety profile, though the description could say more about prerequisites or returned fields.

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 27 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only general context about currency and network validation, not parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save a recipient and their bank account for a currency and network.' It explains the downstream purpose ('so later transfers can pay it by id') and distinguishes the tool from pure retrieval or archival siblings by describing upsert and revive behavior.

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?

Usage is implied through 'so later transfers can pay it by id,' making clear this is a prerequisite for paying a beneficiary later. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_beneficiary, list_beneficiaries, or archive_beneficiary, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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