erc8004_update_agent

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and open-world, but the description adds the crucial requirement of 'wallet + confirmation required,' which is not captured by annotations. This informs the agent that the operation will trigger a blockchain transaction requiring user approval, adding value beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and requirements, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and constraints.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the schema descriptions fill in parameter meanings. The description omits what the tool returns or how the update is executed (e.g., IPFS auto-pinning vs pre-hosted URI), which could be useful, but given the schema coverage it is minimally 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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the schema already provides meaning for each field. The description does not add parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and names the resource 'ERC-8004 agent metadata URI', which distinguishes it from siblings like erc8004_register_agent. However, it focuses on 'URI' while the schema allows updating multiple metadata fields (name, services, etc.), making the description slightly narrower than the actual functionality.

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 this is for updating an existing ERC-8004 agent rather than registering a new one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It provides context that it is a write operation requiring wallet and confirmation, indicating it should be used when an existing agent's metadata needs modification.

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