compose_sweep

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is not a read-only operation. The description adds that it composes a transaction (not broadcasting) and sweeps all assets/BTC, but does not disclose behavioral details such as automatic UTXO selection or ownership transfer implications. This is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately concise.

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 a moderately complex parameter set (bitfield, fee rate, UTXO inputs), but the description is minimal. It does not mention expected output or preconditions, though annotations and schema fill some gaps. For a compose operation, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with all six parameters including flags bitfield and fee rate described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'compose' and the resource 'transaction', with the specific scope of 'sweep all assets and/or BTC from one address to another'. This distinguishes it from sibling compose tools like compose_send and compose_mpma, which target specific assets or transfers.

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 implies use when one wants to move all assets and/or BTC from an address, which differentiates it from more granular compose tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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