t2000_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses gasless sponsorship, gas requirements, and dryRun functionality. It does not mention error handling or failure modes, but the provided behavioral traits are sufficient for typical use.

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 six sentences, each adding essential information. It is well-structured, starting with the main action, then details, and ending with a CLI mirror. Could be slightly more compact but no waste.

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 send tool with no output schema, the description covers parameters and key behavioral traits. However, it omits expected return values (e.g., transaction hash or status) and error conditions, leaving some gaps for agents.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining token unit meaning (1 USDC = $1), emphasizing asset requirement, and clarifying dryRun effect. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool sends three specific tokens (USDC, USDsui, SUI) to various recipient types (address, SuiNS name, contact alias). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like t2000_swap or t2000_pay.

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 explains when to use this tool (sending tokens) and provides detailed usage context: gasless for USDC/USDsui, SUI requires gas, dryRun for preview. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools for when to choose this over alternatives.

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