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

The tightening-is-instant / loosening-waits-24h asymmetry is a real behavioral trait not derivable from the annotations, and the pointer to the wallet-signed immediate path adds escalation context. It stops short of stating whether omitted fields are left unchanged and what the response confirms, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences with the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The terseness costs some clarity because "rails" and "/limits/escalate" assume familiarity.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety/idempotency, so the essentials are present. Missing are partial-update semantics (omitted field = unchanged vs reset) and whether the response reports the new limit state or a pending-change status.

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% and each field documents its own null semantics and scope (e.g. "null = all", "Closing is always allowed"), so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the indirect hint about which changes count as loosening, not per-parameter meaning.

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?

"Adjust rails" is domain jargon rather than a stated verb+resource; the agent must infer from the schema (asset allowlist, loss breaker, notional caps) that this mutates risk limits. It is distinguishable from get_limits by the verb "adjust," but the purpose is only implied, not declared.

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?

It gives a genuine routing rule for the escalation path (wallet-signed immediate change via /limits/escalate), which is useful. However, it never says when to use this tool versus get_limits or escalate_scope, and it does not state that it performs a partial update of whatever limits you supply.

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