transfer_native

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive, on-chain nature is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — "via managed custody" and the mandatory pre-built encrypted payload — but it does not say how to obtain computedData, what auth is needed, or whether the transfer is irreversible once submitted.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the precondition following it. Every clause earns its place.

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, custodial transfer with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety hints, the description leaves open how the required computedData is constructed (a build_trade_payload-style sibling exists) and what the chainId hint affects. It is minimally adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100% and both parameters (chainId, computedData) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates that computedData is required and pre-built; it adds no format, encoding, or chainId semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Transfer native asset") and enumerates example assets (ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB), which clearly distinguishes it from the ERC-20-oriented sibling transfer_token. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 prerequisite "Requires pre-built encrypted computedData" is a useful precondition, and "native asset" implicitly scopes usage versus token transfers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternative (transfer_token) or to how the computedData should be produced.

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