Transfer money to another account

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating there is no undo, no cancel, and no transfer log, and that a success returns an empty data object, so the call should never be repeated. It also discloses that after a network or server error the outcome is unknown, adding critical safety context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 long but every sentence carries essential safety information. It front-loads the action, then details irreversibility and retry guidance, ensuring every part 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 high-risk, irreversible money transfer tool with no output schema, the description covers cancellation, retry risk, empty response, and verification steps. It is comprehensive enough to guide correct and safe invocation.

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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters, including the amount minimum and destination account details. The description reinforces 'minimum 1' and 'normally one of its children' but does not add significant new meaning 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 clearly states the tool moves real money out of the configured account into another account, using the specific verb 'Moves' and resource 'REAL MONEY'. It also distinguishes from siblings like transfer_bonus by emphasizing irreversibility and the 'real money' aspect.

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 clear context: the destination is normally a child account, and it recommends using list_child_accounts to get IDs and checking list_child_accounts_with_balances before retrying. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like transfer_bonus or state when not to use this tool.

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