isw_single_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses high-risk nature and the confirm requirement, but fails to describe idempotency, error handling, authorization needs, or what happens after a successful transfer. This is insufficient for a financial operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (10 parameters, high-risk, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or integration with other tools, leaving critical gaps for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 30%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions amountNaira and amountKobo, while 8 other parameters (including required ones like beneficiaryAccountName, beneficiaryAccountNumber, beneficiaryBankCode, senderName, transactionRef) are left unexplained. This gaps the agent's understanding.

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 'Send money to a bank account', which clearly identifies the verb (send) and resource (money to a bank account). It explicitly marks the operation as high-risk and highlights the need for confirmation, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like isw_bulk_transfer.

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 usage guidance by requiring 'confirm: true' and instructing to provide amountNaira or amountKobo explicitly. However, it does not compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to rely on the name and context to differentiate from siblings.

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