pillar_send

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: a frontend opens for signing and the call then blocks waiting for confirmation, plus the connection prerequisite. It omits fee behavior, failure/timeout handling, and what happens if the user rejects signing.

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?

Action, prerequisite slots and recipient-type mapping are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional and not needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the asynchronous signing flow, and recipient semantics. The main remaining gap is what is returned after confirmation and how fees are handled.

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%, so the schema already documents 'to', 'amount' (satoshis) and the recipientType enum. The description restates the three recipient types with examples, reinforcing but not adding meaning beyond the schema (e.g. no amount limits or format validation rules).

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (send sBTC) scoped to the Pillar smart wallet, which separates it from generic siblings like sbtc_transfer. It does not explicitly contrast with the very similar pillar_direct_send, so differentiation from the closest sibling is left implicit.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires being connected first (use pillar_connect)') and explains which recipientType to pick for each input form. It stops short of naming alternatives such as sbtc_transfer for non-Pillar wallets or saying 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.