Sweep the app wallet to the withdrawal wallet

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds real behavioral context: REAL-MONEY gated, destination resolved server-side and immutable by the caller, fallback behavior when no withdrawal wallet is saved, and resilience to config problems that block other writes. Annotations confirm mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destructiveHint, and nothing here contradicts them.

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?

Front-loads the critical 'REAL-MONEY (gated)' signal and keeps to three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, destination resolution, failure resilience, ordering). Parentheticals add some density but no sentence is pure 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?

For a one-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers destination resolution, fallback, gate conditions, and sequencing. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and understand what it will do; return values are not required to be explained here.

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?

Only one parameter (confirmPhrase, optional) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it, including the DFM_MCP_CONFIRM_REQUIRED=1 gate. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3 when coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the app wallet's USDC + SOL'), the exact destination rules (saved withdrawal wallet, or owner wallet as fallback), and explicitly notes the destination is server-side and non-choosable. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like withdraw_asset and transfer_admin.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Do this BEFORE app_wallet_rearm') and names a success condition not shared by peers (works even when writes are otherwise refused due to a stale rebalancer stamp or expired grant). It lacks a direct contrast with withdraw_asset, so it stops short of naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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