Private send

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the relayer pays gas, the fee is flat plus 0.35% deducted from the received amount, "max" splits across sends and leaves dust, and each send takes 30-90 s. The timeout retry warning is exactly the operational guidance an agent needs for a non-idempotent send.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then fee, then max semantics, then latency, then the retry hazard. Four compact sentences with no filler; each one changes how an agent would call the tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent payment tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, timing, and failure handling well. It stops short of saying what a successful call returns (e.g., a tx hash or operation id) and leaves the flat fee amount unspecified, which an agent may need before committing 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 coverage is 75% and the description adds meaning on top, especially the "max" token behavior (whole pool balance, or every pool when pool is omitted) which the schema pattern alone does not convey. Recipient remains undocumented in both, but its regex constraint makes that low-risk.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Pay any EVM address privately from the private balance"), which immediately separates it from siblings like blackpool_deposit, blackpool_swap, and blackpool_bridge. An agent knows exactly which operation this is without opening the schema.

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 the context of use (private balance payout), clarifies the "max" case including the multi-pool variant, and explicitly routes post-timeout behavior to blackpool_balance. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer blackpool_bridge or blackpool_swap instead, so the sibling routing is only partially covered.

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