Transfer vault admin control (high sensitivity)

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

The description contradicts the destructiveHint=true annotation by asserting the tool never transfers anything and always refuses. The disclosure is genuinely useful (it saves the agent a dead call), but it directly negates the annotation's behavioral claim, so credit is heavily reduced per the contradiction rule.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key fact (NOT AVAILABLE) before the rationale and the workaround. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 stub tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens on call and where to go instead, which is what an agent needs. It is slightly under-complete only because it leaves the parameter set entirely unaddressed and conflicts with the annotation metadata.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only confirmPhrase is documented in-schema), so the description would need to compensate for vault and newAdmin. It says nothing about any parameter, leaving both required fields' semantics unexplained beyond their regex patterns.

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 states a specific verb+resource (admin transfer) and immediately clarifies the tool's actual behavior: it is not available and always refuses. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use ('NOT AVAILABLE YET... always refuses; no control is transferred') and names the alternative ('Do it in the app'). Nothing is left to inference about whether to invoke it.

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