send_to_wallet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost, speed, and transfer rail ('free, instant, intraledger'), but omits permissions, irreversibility, failure behavior, and confirmation details for a funds-moving mutation.

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?

Two compact sentences with the key qualifier – intraledger transfer – front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 core behavior and amount unit are covered, and the schema fully describes inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not say what happens on success/failure or whether the transfer is irreversible, leaving gaps for a value-transfer operation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that amount is in satoshis for BTC wallets, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: sends Bitcoin to another Blink wallet. The phrase 'intraledger transfer' clearly distinguishes it from on-chain siblings like send_onchain and from the USD variant send_to_wallet_usd.

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?

Gives clear context for use: another Blink wallet, free and instant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the intraledger constraint is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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