intl_transfer_create

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: SCA requirement, inline polling (default 30s), fallback to pending response, and the two-step continuation via sca_session_show and sca_session_token. It also explains the sca_session_token parameter's effect. It does not mention idempotency or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently conveys the core operation and SCA flow without redundancy.

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 the SCA flow but lacks details about the response structure (e.g., transfer ID, status) despite having no output schema. For a creation tool, this omission can hinder an agent's ability to process the result. It does mention a 'structured pending response' but does not define it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema; only the behavior of sca_session_token (suppressing polling) is extra. The wait parameter semantics are already well described in 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 'Create an international transfer', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like internal_transfer_create or bulk_transfer_create, which also create 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 implies the tool is for creating international transfers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The SCA handling guidance is present but not usage context.

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