Перевод между счетами

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. For a mutation tool it does not say that balances on both accounts are changed, whether the operation creates a record that must later be updated/deleted, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. Only the single-currency constraint is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and appending the currency constraint. Efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than compression.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this is thinner than ideal: the description tells you what it does but not the effects, prerequisites, or parameter formats. It is adequate to select the tool but not to call it confidently.

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 33%; the three required parameters (amount, from_account, to_account) have no schema descriptions at all, and the description adds no meaning about their accepted forms (account id vs name, currency defaults). The 'в одной валюте' phrasing loosely touches the currency parameter, but the schema already documents currency better than the description does.

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 ('Перевести деньги с одного счёта на другой') plus a scope constraint ('в одной валюте') that implicitly separates it from the sibling add_currency_exchange. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 'в одной валюте' parenthetical implies the boundary condition — cross-currency moves belong to add_currency_exchange — but the description never names the alternative or states the rule outright. No guidance on prerequisites such as the accounts having to exist or be of the same currency.

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