Перевести деньги на другой аккаунт

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating the transfer is irreversible, unreversible, has no journal, and that retrying after errors can double-spend money. It also explains the response semantics: an empty data object on success. This is excellent transparency, especially given the high stakes.

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. It front-loads the most critical fact (real money, irreversible) and then explains the response semantics and error handling. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's high stakes (real money, irreversible), the description is fully complete. It covers the action, parameters, response format, error handling, and troubleshooting. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety hints. No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool 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 parameters are simple, but the description adds critical semantics: it clarifies that the sender is always the configured account (cannot be overridden) and that accountIdTo is the RECEIVER. It also specifies the minimum amount and reinforces the irreversibility. This adds value beyond the schema 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 clearly states this tool transfers REAL MONEY from the configured account to another account (usually a child account). It specifies the exact resource (transfer_funds), the action (transfer), and the amount parameter. This distinguishes it from transfer_bonus, which likely transfers bonus funds, and from other siblings. The description is explicit that this is irreversible, which is a critical distinguishing feature.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to transfer real money, typically to child accounts) and when not to (when you need bonus transfer, use transfer_bonus). It also warns against repeating calls after errors and advises checking list_child_accounts_with_balances instead. This is clear guidance for an agent to avoid duplicate transfers.

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