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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two genuinely useful non-obvious traits: that HTTP success does not imply on-chain execution, and that charges/authorization are governed by the caller's gateway credentials. However, it does not say whether the submitted steps replace or merge with existing plan state, whether updates are idempotent, or what happens to already-proven steps, which are the key behavioral questions for a mutation of this shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and only four short sentences, no padding. The generic line about the native Uniswap HTTP contract earns little but does not obstruct; the caveat and gateway note are the only sentences carrying real information.

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 mutation with a nested proof payload, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the safety caveat but leaves the body semantics and the response shape unaddressed. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps an agent would care about.

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 nested body (steps, stepIndex, proof.txHash, proof.signature with regex patterns) is fully typed, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about what a 'proof' is or how stepIndex ordering matters, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Update an execution plan') and adds the concept of a tracked multi-step execution plan, which helps distinguish it from the read/create siblings (get/post plan). It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings by name, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus uniswap_post_v1_plan (create) or uniswap_get_v1_plan_planid (read), nor any prerequisite such as 'the plan must already exist' or 'call after executing steps'. The only guidance-adjacent text, that HTTP success is not proof of completion, is a caveat rather than a when-to-use rule.

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