send_to_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'free, instant, intraledger transfer'. However, it does not mention potential failure conditions, reversibility, or prerequisites like authentication. The disclosed traits are helpful but incomplete for a money-movement tool.

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 the core action. Every word earns its place: 'free', 'instant', 'intraledger', and 'satoshis' all communicate critical scope and behavior. No fluff or 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?

For a moderate-complexity tool (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the main use case and key constraints. It provides enough context for an agent to select it among many siblings. Missing explicit guidance on memo or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description reinforces the satoshi unit for amount, but that is already in the schema. It adds no new parameter-level meaning for wallet_id or recipient_wallet_id, and memo remains undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Send Bitcoin') and the target ('another Blink wallet'), with additional scope qualifiers ('free, instant, intraledger transfer') that differentiate it from external or on-chain sends. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_onchain and send_to_wallet_usd by specifying the internal nature and satoshi unit.

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 when to use this tool: for direct, internal Blink wallet transfers. It does not explicitly name alternatives like send_to_wallet_usd or send_to_username, but the intraledger framing and satoshi mention provide clear context. Absence of explicit 'when not to use' prevents a 5.

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