lemma_move_money_internally

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that this is a WRITE operation that 'MOVES REAL MONEY', is not reversible by implication, and requires explicit user approval. This is critical and well-stated, though it could also mention effects like potential failure modes or response behavior; the idempotency behavior is covered in the reference parameter description.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the most important warning ('WRITE -- MOVES REAL MONEY') before explaining the operation and the approval requirement. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 real-money mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential safety context: it is a write, it moves actual money, it is internal to owned accounts, and it requires explicit user approval. The schema richly documents the parameters, including idempotency via reference. Minor missing context includes potential error conditions and what the response looks like, but the core operational and safety information is present.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds overall context about moving funds between owned accounts and requiring approval, but it does not add individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'WRITE -- MOVES REAL MONEY' followed by 'instant, free book transfer between two Lemma accounts owned by this platform's granted entities.' It clearly identifies the operation as an internal money movement between owned accounts, which distinguishes it from the sibling lemma_move_money_externally without needing to open that tool.

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 strong contextual guidance by specifying that it applies to internal transfers between two Lemma accounts and emphasizing that explicit user approval is required before every call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and the approval precondition effectively route an agent toward correct use and away from external transfers.

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