create_transfer

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description is consistent with a destructive action. The description adds the warning emoji and enumerates payment methods, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like irreversibility or account balance impacts.

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 concise (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. However, the mix of Spanish and English and lack of structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no param info in the description (except payment_method), the description is insufficient for agents to correctly invoke the tool. An output schema exists but is not described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only adds semantics for payment_method (listing three options). Parameters like amount, concept, origin_account, destination_account, and date remain unexplained, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 it creates a transfer between accounts ('Crea traspaso entre cuentas'), which distinguishes it from tools like create_expense or create_income. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or highlight unique aspects beyond 'entre cuentas'.

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 includes an explicit instruction: 'Confirmar con usuario' (confirm with user), which tells the agent to ask for confirmation before executing. It also lists payment method options, guiding selection. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.

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