gm_agent_gm_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the dry-run default, that it returns a prepared transaction, that confirm:true broadcasts a real transaction, that the contract reverts if either party is unregistered, and that a small ETH balance is required for gas.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential safety and precondition details. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundant restatement of the parameter schema.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, default behavior, confirmation flow, potential revert condition, and gas requirements, leaving little for an agent to guess.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: confirm:true must only follow explicit human approval, recipient must be a registered agent, and the privateKey parameter corresponds to the sender side of the registered-agent requirement.

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 clearly states the action: sending an agent GM to another registered agent via gmTo(recipient), naming the contract and the free-except-gas cost model. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling gm_agent_gm tool.

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 gives strong operational guidance: both sender and recipient must be registered, dry-run is the default, and confirm:true is only for after explicit human approval. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of gm_agent_gm when...' statement, but the context is largely clear.

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