agentscoin_send

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only 'from your wallet', which is already implied by the optional privateKey parameter, and says nothing about irreversibility or gas costs for a destructive value transfer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are underserved.

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 low-complexity three-parameter tool with no output schema and usable annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves out the irreversible nature of the transfer and any distinction from agentscoin_pay, which an agent would benefit from knowing before sending funds.

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 the schema fully documents 'to', 'amount', and 'privateKey', including the fallback-to-saved-wallet behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send AGENT... to another address'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling tool agentscoin_pay, which likely performs a similar transfer, leaving the agent to guess which to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over agentscoin_pay, nor any prerequisites, confirmation expectations, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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