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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomic single-transaction behavior, 30-second calldata time-sensitivity, retry-on-revert guidance, tenderly simulation response fields, expected_value_change units, and the before/after account value comparison. These are meaningful behavioral traits that annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with the annotations found.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, prerequisites, timing, failure handling, and response semantics are all covered. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers operational detail in a logical order appropriate for a complex multi-step tool.

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's complexity, the description covers all required operational context: when to use, prerequisites, account types, retry behavior, response fields, and value units. It even explains how to interpret expected_value_change and compare before/after account values, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by explaining how 'deposits array' and 'use_account_assets=true' serve as alternative capital sources, that leverage applies only to margin accounts, and that omitting deposits means using only account collateral. This extra context lifts it above baseline.

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 opens with 'Multi-step flash-action' and enumerates exactly what the tool composes: deposit, collateral use, swap, LP mint, and optional borrow. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from write_account_deposit by warning 'Do NOT call write_account_deposit separately,' making its scope and role unmistakable.

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 concrete usage workflow: check read_wallet_allowances first, approve via write_wallet_approve if needed, then call with either deposits, account collateral, or both. It also clarifies margin vs spot account behavior, points to read_guides('strategies') for workflows, and instructs to retry at least once on price-related reverts.

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