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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes to chain, produces an unsigned transaction (intent), and nothing happens until signed and submitted. This is valuable process information not in the schema or annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action, then immediately followed by the critical workflow constraint. No wasted words.

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 annotations cover safety, schema is complete, and no output schema exists, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It could mention whether the item must already be in the cart or how to get item_id, but overall it's complete for the tool's scope.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (change quantity) and resource (item in your cart), clearly distinguished from siblings like add/remove item and checkout. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly states the workflow context: prepares an unsigned intent for the signer, then must be signed and submitted via geode-local-signer and geode_submit_intent. It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it (e.g., use add_item_to_cart for new items), but the mutation nature and intent flow are clear.

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