Execute an on-net transfer

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate non-read-only and non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: each item authorizes with the current owner's port-out PIN, per-TN independent success/failure with specific reasons, step-up MFA requirement, and possible error codes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently appends behavioral details, failure reasons, and error codes in a structured manner.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and errors well. However, with no output schema, a more explicit description of the response structure would be helpful for an agent to parse results correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that each item authorizes with the PIN and that results are per-TN independent. This enhances understanding of parameter usage 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Transfer', the resource 'on-net numbers between WARP tenants', and distinguishes the tool by specifying 'without an NPAC port'. This sets it apart from sibling tools like port_preview_transfer and other port operations.

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 explicitly advises to 'Preview eligibility first with port_preview_transfer', providing a clear prerequisite. It also notes that items succeed or fail independently, guiding usage behavior. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or conditions when not to use this tool.

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