Send transfer

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the confirm guardrail and the conditional attestation_required return value. It does not mention the risk of duplicate intents from repeated calls, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the prerequisite and a notable conditional response. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the description covers the key workflow gate, the mandatory flag, and a likely conditional response. Without an output schema, it could say a bit more about what a successful call returns or how the resulting intent is referenced, but it is not severely incomplete.

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 already documents confirm fully, including the requirement that it must be true only after review. The description reinforces this but does not add much. quoteId has only a type in the schema, and the description's 'from a quote' provides light semantic context. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented quoteId.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('CIMS intent'), and the source ('from a quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cims_quote, cims_attest, and cims_cancel. The title 'Send transfer' is clarified rather than left ambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: it must be called only after the user has reviewed the quote, and confirm must be true. It also hints at the alternative/conditional path by mentioning attestation_required, which suggests cims_attest may be needed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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