cpu_transport

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: on-chain execution, atomic debit, transit fee payment (auto-approved once), escrow with time-delayed delivery, hop radius constraints, and that goods credit only after calling cpu_finalize_delivery. It also mentions return values and fee waiver conditions. This is comprehensive.

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 dense but well structured, front-loading the core action then layering prerequisites, constraints, and flow. It is longer than average but every clause adds useful information; could be slightly trimmed for conciseness but remains efficient.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, authentication, constraints, recommended flow, return values, post-conditions, and edge cases (e.g., own-cells fee waiver). It gives the agent everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats path constraints already in the schema and adds minimal new parameter-specific meaning; the additional context (fees, atomicity) is more about general behavior than the parameters themselves. It does not significantly enhance 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 opens with 'Move a resource between cells along a waypoint chain of tokenIds', giving a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cpu_next_hops, cpu_quote_transport, and cpu_finalize_delivery by placing transport as the action that executes the move.

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?

Provides explicit recommended flow: scout with cpu_next_hops, chain waypoints, verify with cpu_quote_transport, then execute. Also states when not to pay fees (own cells only) and prerequisites (session via cpu_authenticate). This offers clear when-to-use and alternative tooling context.

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