update_contract_setting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the key authorization constraint (creator's wallet) which the annotations don't convey. It doesn't detail potential side effects, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences delivering action, parameter explanation, and a prerequisite. No fluff, front-loaded with the verb. Every clause earns its place.

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 update tool without output schema, the description covers the essential points: action, parameter, and authorization. It omits details like transaction outcomes, but the annotations and simple schema keep the informational load manageable.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by explaining consume_user_resource_percent as 'user pay ratio', going beyond the schema's generic description. This extra context aids correct value selection.

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?

Description specifies exact action 'Update' with precise resource 'consume_user_resource_percent (user pay ratio)', clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_energy_limit or write_contract. The parenthetical clarifies the domain meaning, removing ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires the contract creator's wallet'), which sets expectations for when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 'when not to use', leaving some room for inference.

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