radiant_transfer_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the token UTXO must be at the sender's address and how to specify amounts for FT vs NFT, but it omits side effects such as spending the UTXO, creating/broadcasting a transaction, fee behavior, change-address handling, and whether a transaction ID is returned. It also says 'Requires a WIF private key' even though the schema allows key_alias as an alternative, slightly overstating the requirement.

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 tight and front-loaded: the primary action is in the first sentence, followed by two crucial usage conditions. It wastes no words, though the final 'Requires a WIF private key' is slightly misleading given the key_alias alternative and could be more precise.

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?

This is a state-changing transfer tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the token type and amount semantics, but it does not explain what happens upon success (transaction broadcast? txid returned?), the role of fee_per_byte and change_address, or that key_alias can replace wif. An agent would have to infer significant execution behavior from the schema alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the FT/NFT distinction and restates base-unit/amount=1 semantics, but those are already present in the amount parameter's schema description. It does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transfer') and resource ('Glyph token (FT or NFT)') and names the action destination ('another address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like radiant_create_ft, radiant_create_nft, radiant_burn_token, and radiant_send_rxd. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, and it provides important prerequisites ('token UTXO must be at the sender's address', 'Requires a WIF private key'), but it never names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Given siblings like radiant_send_batch or radiant_build_transaction, explicit routing would be better; without it, usage is implied rather than clearly contrasted.

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