brc_update_allocations

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the confirmWrite parameter must only be set after user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state that the initial call without confirmWrite creates a draft, nor does it describe other side effects or permissions. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well but could be more explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by prerequisite and caution. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the workflow but lacks detail on return values or how to retrieve the allocation draft. The prerequisite and caution are helpful, but the agent may need more information about post-invocation behavior to use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces required fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not explain the nested structure of allocationResolvers beyond what is in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates or updates allocations for a sender book transaction.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the sibling tools include related but distinct operations like listing and deleting allocation resolvers, so it is well-differentiated.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use brc_list_allocation_resolvers first to identify eligible receiver transactions.' It also gives a clear when-not: 'Do not call with confirmWrite=true until the user has reviewed the allocation draft and explicitly confirmed posting.' This covers prerequisites and exclusions effectively.

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