Criar Transferência

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

The description discloses the need for the confirm parameter, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. No contradictions, but other behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, errors) are omitted.

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 very concise with two short sentences, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly longer to include essential parameter details without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the overall behavior, return value, or error conditions. With 8 parameters and a complex transfer operation, the minimal description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 should compensate by explaining key parameters. It only mentions 'confirm', leaving 7 other parameters (including critical ones like amount_cents, sent_account_id) undescribed. Agent would lack information to use the tool correctly.

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, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'despezzas_create_transaction', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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 provides a critical usage requirement ('Exige confirm=true'), which is helpful. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_transaction) and does not mention any prerequisites or context.

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