transfer_to_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY' but omits other behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. No return value info is given.

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 sentence plus a brief requirement statement. Every word is functional, no fluff, and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or verification steps. It feels incomplete for a money-transfer action.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what is in the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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: 'Transfer sats between agents or from operator to agent.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pay_invoice or keysend, which handle external payments.

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 internal agent-to-agent transfers but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives (e.g., pay_invoice, keysend). It mentions a prerequisite (operator key) but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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