operation_prepare

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already signal safety and external interaction. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns 'next actions plus opaque resume state', indicating a two-part result and that the operation is not directly executed. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return information. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 (four distinct operation kinds, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but misses key context: it does not mention the operation kinds (swap, order, bridge, tool) explicitly, nor does it explain how the opaque resume state should be used (e.g., with operation_resume). The schema covers the parameters, but the description alone would not fully guide an agent through the prepare-with-resume flow.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for parameters, with detailed descriptions for each field across all four operation variants. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('external-wallet operation') and immediately names the three target integrations (Orbs, LI.FI, GOAT). It also states the return value (next actions plus opaque resume state), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from direct execution tools.

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 — when preparing an external-wallet operation for the named integrations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate between this generic prepare tool and the many specific sibling prepare tools (e.g., orbs_prepare_swap_intent, lifi_prepare_bridge_intent), nor does it state when not to use it or which alternatives exist.

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