compose_movetoutxo

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that attached tokens move with the UTXO, but does not clarify whether the composed transaction is broadcast or returned unsigned, or what side effects occur beyond 'composing'.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose, with no repetition or filler.

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 is adequate for a simple compose operation, especially with full schema coverage and annotations. However, the lack of an output schema and the description's silence on what the tool returns (e.g., hex transaction, signed tx) leaves a notable gap for an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what is already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Compose a transaction') and a precise resource ('move a UTXO (and any attached tokens) to a new output'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like compose_send by focusing on moving an entire UTXO, not sending a specific asset.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need to move a UTXO and its attached tokens to a new output. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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