Transfer Account Balance

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description need not restate them. It adds no extra context about side effects beyond 'Transfer' (source decreases, destination increases), and does not warn about duplicate transfers or insufficient funds. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, and the source/destination relationship are all present 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?

With a complete input schema and an output schema, the description leaves little ambiguity for a simple two-account transfer. It could additionally state constraints like positive amounts or distinct account IDs, but these are reasonable defaults for a transfer operation.

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 input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no additional parameter-level semantics (e.g., positivity, distinct accounts), keeping it at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('Transfer'), resource ('cash balances'), and relationship ('between two accounts'), making the tool's function unambiguous. This also differentiates it from siblings like create_account_balance and delete_account_balance, which lack the two-account movement semantics.

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 intended usage is implied by 'between two accounts' — the tool is for moving cash from one account to another. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_account_balance/delete_account_balance or mention prerequisites like verifying balances.

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