Send a bank wire from Acme's account to a recipient account with amount and memo; Squidbrake routes the request for approval and audit.
Send a bank transfer (wire) from Acme's account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| to_account | Yes | ||
| justification | No | Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / justificationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, approval workflow, or rate limits — all critical for a money-movement operation. Only the word 'wire' hints that this is a real, irreversible bank action; the optional justification param suggests an approval flow that the description never mentions.
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 tight sentence with no waste and the key action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the risk level, but judged purely on structure it is efficient and readable.
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 high-stakes financial mutation with no output schema, no annotations, and near-zero parameter documentation, the description is materially incomplete. An agent could invoke it without knowing about approval gates, irreversibility, or the meaning of the required fields.
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 only 25%, and the description compensates for none of it: to_account, amount, and memo are unexplained (currency? format? internal vs external account?). The only documented param, justification, is described in the schema, not the description.
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?
States a specific verb (send) and resource (bank transfer/wire) plus the source account (Acme's), which is enough to distinguish it from payments_refund and payments_list_charges. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the action and scope are unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. An agent cannot tell from the text when a transfer is preferred over a refund or when approval (via acme_check_approval) must be sought first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.