change_vesting_beneficiary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Transfer' implies mutation, but nothing is said about side effects (e.g., what happens to the old beneficiary, permission requirements, reversibility). This lack of transparency increases risk of misuse.

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?

At 4 words, the description is under-specified rather than efficient. It fails to convey essential context. A good concise description would still pack meaningful details about usage and parameters.

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 of transferring a beneficiary (likely irreversible with legal implications) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. There is no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations to compensate. The agent lacks critical information 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description provides zero additional information about 'vesting_id' or 'new_beneficiary', leaving the agent without guidance on format, constraints, or semantics (e.g., is 'new_beneficiary' a wallet address ID?). This is a critical gap.

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 'Transfer vesting to new beneficiary' clearly states the action (transfer) and the resource (vesting) and target (new beneficiary). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'transfer_vesting_creator', which likely handles a different role. A brief note distinguishing them would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer_vesting_creator' or 'add_tokens_to_vesting'. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection among many vesting-related tools.

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