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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that creating a mandate 'moves no money by itself', is 'not yet signed by an external wallet', and is not a 'user-authorised instruction a stranger can rely on'. It also reveals the crucial downstream gating behavior where ava_approve_execute can refuse based on the mandate's status and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core definition, followed by a helpful example and important caveats. The caveats about not moving money and not being externally signed are verbose but earn their place because they prevent dangerous misinterpretation. The overall structure is clear and each sentence contributes something useful.

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 provides a strong conceptual model and an example, but the tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain the required 'portal' parameter, the meaning of 'conditions', or what the tool returns. This is a minimally viable definition with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 11% (only agentInstanceId has a description), so the free-text description must compensate heavily. It does add meaning for objective, capital, constraints, and optional agentInstanceId scoping, and gives a structured capital example {asset, amount, chain}. But most parameters — portal, userId, name, message, conditions — receive no clarification in either the schema or the description, leaving agents to guess their semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a capital mandate', and defines exactly what that means — the objective, capital, and constraints an agent is allowed to act under. The example ('Earn on 500 USDC on Base, max 5% drawdown') makes the tool's purpose concrete and unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools by stating it 'moves no money by itself'.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by explaining it creates Ava's own record rather than executing an action, and it references the later ava_approve_execute flow. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when you need to define a mandate' or contrasts it with sibling creation tools like ava_create_agent, leaving the when-to-use vs alternatives guidance implicit.

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