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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires EIP-191 wallet signature auth') and adds some behavioral constraints (single-use nonce, max 100 KB content, existing document). However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or whether the update overwrites content entirely, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a brief auth note, and a formatted args list. It avoids redundancy and each line provides necessary information, though the list is necessarily long due to 7 parameters. Earns a high score for clarity and organization.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all required inputs with context (auth format, path example, content limit). Some aspects like the exact workspace root or behavior when the path doesn't exist are omitted, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained with format specifics: wallet_address is checksummed, wallet_signature format includes the exact string pattern, wallet_timestamp is Unix seconds, wallet_nonce is 32-char single-use hex, and content has a size limit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string types in 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 clearly states 'Update an existing document in the agent's workspace' with a specific verb and resource. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' (vs create) and the workspace context, making it easy to identify which operation to invoke.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to update an existing document. It provides a prerequisite (EIP-191 auth) and points to auteng_docs_create for auth details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others (e.g., when to choose create or delete). No explicit exclusions are given.

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