Create payout

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical context: 'MOVES REAL MONEY — irreversible' and the asynchronous nature ('response may be pending; poll get_payout'). It also discloses the separate credentials requirement, which is not apparent from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then behavior warning. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisites, async status polling, and irreversibility. It does not explain conditional parameter requirements, but the schema handles those details, making the description sufficient for this complexity.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions recipient types (bank card, wallet, SBP) that map to the schema's destination_type enum, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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+object ('Create a payout') and clearly lists recipient types (bank card, YooMoney wallet, SBP), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment or get_payout. It immediately identifies the tool's core function without ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires a separately-activated YooKassa Payouts product and credentials, and it instructs to poll get_payout for final status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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