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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful piece of behavior—operator-key authorization—and clearly indicates a funds movement. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the agent remains active, whether partial sweeps leave the agent usable, or whether the operation is reversible) or what the response contains.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the critical authorization warning is separated as its own sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described schema fields, the description is reasonably complete, but it lacks any mention of return value, side effects, or relation to sibling money-movement tools. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would have to infer the outcome of a successful sweep.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents agent_id and amount_sats, including the 'all' option. The description's 'sweep funds from agent back to operator balance' loosely maps to both parameters but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Sweep'), resource (funds), and direction (from agent back to operator balance), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like withdraw or transfer_to_agent, but the direction 'back to operator balance' is enough to distinguish it.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to move agent funds back to the operator) and states a prerequisite ('REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY'), but it never names alternatives such as withdraw or transfer_to_agent or states when this tool should be avoided. The usage context is clear but the exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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