createTransfer

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 adds a meaningful constraint: credit cards are not accepted. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the transfer is reversible, whether it requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. Thus, it provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable constraint without unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?

The tool has 8 parameters with 4 required, and no annotations are provided. The description does not explain the required fields, prerequisites, or how this tool differs from alternatives like 'createTransaction'. The output schema exists, but the input side is under-specified, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly use the tool in all cases.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is only 25%. The schema itself provides some descriptions for debit/credit account IDs and amount_cents, but the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool's purpose: 'Cria uma transferência entre duas contas' (Creates a transfer between two accounts), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by explicitly excluding credit cards, which is particularly relevant given the sibling tool 'createTransaction'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a transfer between two accounts. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Cartões de crédito não são aceitos'), indicating when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'createTransaction' for other cases, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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