create_external_beneficiary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives an example, without mentioning side effects, response format, permissions, or any post-creation conditions. This is insufficient for a create operation with no output 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single action sentence, a bolded required list, and a code example. Every element adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words 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?

The description provides the essential purpose, required fields, and an example, which is adequate for constructing a valid request. However, with no output schema, it fails to explain what the response or result looks like, and it omits any post-conditions or caveats. Given the tool's complexity (26 parameters), this is a minor but notable gap.

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 covers all 26 parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds a required-fields summary including the OR condition between countryDestinationId and countryISO, which is not in the schema's required array. The example JSON also demonstrates a realistic parameter combination, providing practical guidance beyond the schema's per-field 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('external bank account beneficiary'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_internal_beneficiary and create_crypto_beneficiary. The addition of 'using TropiPay API' is redundant but does not introduce 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 clearly indicates when to use this tool by specifying 'external bank account beneficiary' and listing required fields, which provides context for selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tool names are implied by the 'external' qualifier.

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