internal_transfer

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: 'HIGH risk, requires full mode', disclosing permission/risk level beyond annotations. It does not detail failure modes or reversibility, but provides sufficient behavioral warning.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary with risk note, followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. The risk warning is front-loaded, which is appropriate for a destructive operation.

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 tool with 5 required params, high risk, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers essentials: purpose, risk, parameter meanings. It lacks explanation of return values (but output schema can handle that) and error cases. Slightly incomplete for a high-risk mutation tool, but adequate given the structured schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to fully explain each parameter. It does so thoroughly: transferId (UUID generation), coin (example), amount (as string), and account types with explicit allowed values (UNIFIED, CONTRACT, SPOT, OPTION, FUND). This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 'Transfer funds between account types under same UID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transfer_history (history vs. action) and place_order (different resource). However, it could be more explicit about the exclusive use case (only for same UID transfers).

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?

Description warns 'HIGH risk, requires full mode', implying caution. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for viewing history use get_transfer_history, for trading use place_order). No explicit 'use this when' or 'use that instead' guidance.

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