update_brokerage

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that only an SR can invoke the tool and explains the economic effect (the SR keeps a percentage, the remainder goes to voters). This aligns with annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) and enriches understanding without contradiction.

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 two sentences (three clauses), efficient and front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the action, the synonym, the authorization, and the parameter meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with only two parameters (one required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers core functionality, authorization, and parameter semantics. There is no critical missing information for correct invocation.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (network defaults to mainnet; brokerage range 0-100 with an example). The description adds only a minor extra detail (the remainder goes to voters), which is also somewhat implied by the schema's example. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('SR brokerage ratio'), with the clarifying synonym 'dividend ratio'. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_brokerage, which is read-only.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when changing the brokerage ratio) and includes an explicit authorization restriction ('Only callable by an SR'), which serves as a when-not condition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the specific purpose makes the appropriate usage evident.

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