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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the unsigned nature, the need for signing and broadcasting, preservation of existing permissions, and authentication requirement. This goes beyond a simple 'build transaction' statement, though it does not cover failure modes or idempotency.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential purpose, workflow, and a behavioral guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, the build-sign-broadcast workflow, and the return type (unsigned transaction). It omits potential error conditions or effects on existing permissions if re-run, but these are not critical for a transaction builder, so it is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for poolAddress and includeVote; it focuses on the transaction's purpose rather than parameter-specific details.

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 it builds an AccountPermissionUpdate transaction granting the PowerSun platform permission to delegate/undelegate resources and optionally vote. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like broadcast_signed_permission_tx and check_pool_permissions.

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 provides a clear workflow: build unsigned transaction, sign with private key, then broadcast via broadcast_signed_permission_tx. This implies use context and prerequisites, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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