transfer_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the OTP conditional behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, balance changes) or error handling, though the verb 'transfer' implies a write operation. Overall, it provides useful context beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with 'Step 2' to establish workflow context, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It avoids redundancy with the schema and is highly concise.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains the OTP workflow step and parameter requirements. However, it does not describe return values or success/failure indicators, which could be important for the agent to verify the transfer outcome. Despite this, the high schema coverage and clear step context make it sufficiently complete for correct 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?

The schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'otpCode' and 'transactionRef' are only required when OTP is enabled and that they come from 'request_transfer_otp'. This contextual linkage is not present in the schema and clarifies conditional parameter 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 tool's action: 'Execute the token transfer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and positions itself as 'Step 2' in a workflow, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'request_transfer_otp' which handles the OTP request step. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage guidance by referencing the OTP flow: it instructs the agent to provide 'otpCode and transactionRef from request_transfer_otp' when OTP is enabled, and notes these fields can be omitted when OTP is disabled. This explicitly covers when and how to use the tool relative to its prerequisite.

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