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

The annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description goes well beyond them. It discloses the concrete side effect (overwrites stored automation settings for the current user), the non-idempotency nuance across differing field sets, the wallet-signature identity requirement, and the failure modes (invalid field combinations, unauthorized sessions, policy constraints). It also states the return payload (autoSettings), which is useful context even with an output schema.

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 mutation and its side effect are front-loaded in the first two clauses, followed by the return value, then the sibling routing guidance, then failure modes — a logical order with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact.

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?

For a 3-parameter, deeply nested, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what is overwritten, auth requirement, non-idempotency, sibling alternatives, and error conditions. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is absent.

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 nested poolSetting, addOnFeature and paymentConfig properties are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the general 'partial fields' patching semantics. It does not clarify any specific field behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

"Update the existing auto-sell configuration with partial fields" names a specific verb (update), resource (auto-sell configuration) and a key semantic (partial / incremental patch). The description then explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (tronsave_get_user_auto_setting for reading the baseline, tronsave_register_auto_sell for first-time setup), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use (incremental changes after registration) plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them: read the baseline via get_user_auto_setting to avoid resets, and use register_auto_sell only for first-time setup. That is a complete routing rule set with no exclusions left to inference.

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