transfer_nft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Transfer'), requires authentication ('private key of the current owner'), and involves transaction signing. It also mentions security context about private key handling. However, it doesn't cover potential failure modes, gas requirements, or confirmation times.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about authentication requirements. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the essential context: what the tool does, authentication requirements, and security considerations. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, return values, or gas/network fee implications, which would be helpful given the complexity of blockchain transactions.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions the private key requirement but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Transfer an NFT'), resource type ('ERC721 token'), and direction ('from one address to another'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like transfer_erc20, transfer_erc1155, and transfer_eth by specifying the NFT/ERC721 token type.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by stating it's for NFT transfers and mentioning the private key requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like transfer_erc1155 for other token types, though the sibling list shows those alternatives exist.

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