isw_bulk_transfer

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: high-risk operation, requires confirm:true, and max 100 transactions. It adds context beyond the schema, though it lacks details on authorization or error handling.

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, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value.

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 high-risk financial tool with a complex nested schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or the distinction between amountKobo and amountNaira in the schema.

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 25%, and the description fails to add meaning for parameters like narration, initiatingEntityCode, or the nested transaction fields (e.g., amountKobo vs amountNaira). It mostly repeats the confirm requirement already in the schema.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'money to multiple bank accounts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'isw_single_transfer'. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies usage for multiple accounts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like single transfer. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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