Send the native coin

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

With only destructiveHint=true in the annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: a presign guard validates the call, spending limits are enforced, and an over-limit transfer escalates to owner approval. It stops short of stating that the transfer is irreversible or what happens on rejection/timeout.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the guard/limit behavior. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 destructive, no-output-schema payment tool, the description covers scope, safety gating and the approval escalation path, which is the critical missing context. It omits failure behavior (e.g. what a rejected or guarded transaction returns), keeping it just short of complete.

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 100%, so 'to', 'amount' (including format) and 'reason' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that funds go 'to an address', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send the chain's native coin') and enumerates the concrete assets (ETH, POL, BNB). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling send_usdc by scoping to the native coin rather than a token.

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 explains what happens after invocation (presign-guard check, spending limit, owner approval) but never says when to choose this over send_usdc or pay_x402. Usage is only inferable from the native-coin scoping.

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