cm_transfer_credits

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

The description only states that the tool transfers credits (a mutating action), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, reversibility, or failure handling. With no annotations (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), the description should provide more context about the tool's side effects.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and efficient, with no extraneous words.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain return values or the effect of the CanUseMyCreditsWhenTheyRunOut parameter. For a mutation tool, users would benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, new balance). The description is adequate for a simple transfer but lacks complete contextual details.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that negative Credits means taking credits back, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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: transfer email credits to or from a client, and explicitly mentions negative values to take credits back. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which perform credit transfers.

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 the tool (when credits need to be transferred), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given that no sibling tool handles credit transfers, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit context like prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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