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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that submission requires the wallet's signatures, and says nothing about failure handling, signature-order requirements, expiry, or whether a rejected intent can be retried safely despite the idempotent hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the object, the covered intent types, and the required credential. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent what comes back from a submission (operation id, transaction hash, status to poll) and how to verify success, and it does not. For a destructive on-chain execution step, that leaves a meaningful gap even though the two parameters are fully documented.

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%, and the schema already explains intent_id provenance and the one-signature-per-actions[i].typed_data ordering rule. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the parenthetical list of intent kinds, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (a prepared intent), and enumerates the intent families it covers (cancel/protect/withdraw), which maps onto the sibling tools that prepare those intents. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names the prepare-side siblings it pairs with.

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 word 'prepared' implies this is the second step after close_position/protect_position/cancel_order/prepare_withdrawal, but the description itself gives no when-to-use rule, no prerequisite statement, and no distinction from other submit_* siblings such as submit_operation or submit_order. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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