sweep_all

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only gives a caution. It does not disclose what 'unlocked balance' means, whether the action is irreversible, or what happens with the priority parameter. The warning is generic.

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 very short and efficiently conveys the basic purpose and a caution. However, the second sentence is just a warning and doesn't add structural completeness. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 dangerous operation like sweeping all balance, the description is incomplete: no return value, no indication of confirmations or reversibility, no explanation of 'unlocked'. Given the risk and lack of output schema, more context is needed.

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 0%. The description implicitly explains the 'address' parameter ('to an address'), but the 'priority' parameter is completely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning or usage.

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 ('Send ALL unlocked balance') and the target ('to an address'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transfer' which sends specific amounts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 only includes 'USE WITH CAUTION' as a warning but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer', nor any prerequisites or conditions for safe use.

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