lemma_move_money_externally

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers thoroughly: it flags a mutating, irreversible-feeling real-money operation, discloses settlement delay, manual review for large transfers, and per-call human approval. It also warns about invalid destinations being rejected, which is beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences convey the risk warning, the core action, the key constraint, settlement timing, review threshold, and approval requirement. There is no filler or repetition of schema content that does not add operational value.

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 high-stakes write operation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, constraints, side effects, timing, edge-case behavior, and human approval. An agent has enough to decide whether and how 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real parameter-level meaning: destination must be a saved external account ID from a specific sibling tool, arbitrary bank accounts are rejected, and large amounts trigger manual review. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's requirement for explicit user approval.

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 'WRITE -- MOVES REAL MONEY' and states the exact action: sending an ACH transfer from a Lemma account to a saved recipient. It clearly distinguishes this from internal transfers by specifying 'externally' and from account listing by naming lemma_list_external_accounts as the required source of destination IDs.

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 clear usage context: only saved recipients are allowed, arbitrary bank accounts are rejected, and the destination must be an external_account_id from lemma_list_external_accounts. It also states the approval requirement. It does not explicitly name internal-transfer alternatives, but the external/internal sibling distinction and the saved-recipient exclusion provide strong directional guidance.

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