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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: writes to the chain, prepares an unsigned intent, requires external signing, is irreversible, and details the two-call confirmation flow with confirm_token. Fully consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true).

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 purpose, then workflow, then irreversibility warning. Every sentence contributes essential information without waste.

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 a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: intent creation, external signing, submission, and the two-step confirmation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions for signer, name, new_owner, and confirm_token are already detailed. The description adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Transfer ownership of a DNS name you own to another account.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like geode_dns_register and geode_dns_set_address.

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?

Provides the necessary workflow context: 'this prepares an unsigned transaction (an intent) for `signer`; nothing happens until you sign it with geode-local-signer and submit it with geode_submit_intent.' Also explains the two-step confirm_token process. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the transfer action is unique among siblings.

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