transfer_token

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that the payload must be pre-built/encrypted and that custody is managed, but says nothing about irreversibility of the transfer, required auth/session state, fees, or failure/retry behavior.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, and the critical prerequisite is placed immediately after the action statement so an agent reads it before invoking.

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 transfer tool with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description is minimally adequate. It omits how to construct computedData (a sibling like build_trade_payload likely exists for this) and what the tool returns on success, leaving the agent to guess at the pre-conditions.

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% with only two parameters, both already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms computedData is required but adds no syntax, format, or how-to-obtain-the-payload detail 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 (transfer) plus the resource class (ERC20 / SPL token) and the custody mode (managed custody). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling transfer_native, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives one hard prerequisite - 'Requires pre-built encrypted computedData' - which tells the agent this cannot be called standalone. But it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. versus transfer_native or build_trade_payload) and no exclusion conditions.

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