cashapp_send_money

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic inputs (recipient, amount, note) but omits critical behaviors like transaction limits, fees, confirmation steps, or error handling. For a money-sending tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 that conveys the core purpose and required inputs without unnecessary words. However, it does not front-load the most critical information (like required vs optional) and the contradiction with the schema 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 there are 3 parameters (all required per schema but description says note is optional), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description fails to address expected return values, success/failure indicators, or potential errors. It leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable invocation.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage, the description contradicts it by stating the note is 'optional' whereas the schema marks it as required. This misleading guidance harms parameter understanding. Additionally, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Send money to another Cash App user.' It specifies the resource (Cash App user) and verb (send), distinguishing it from siblings like cashapp_request_money (requesting money) and cashapp_accept_request (accepting requests).

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 usage when the user wants to send money to another user, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cashapp_request_money. No when-not-to-use or context for selecting among siblings.

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