update_energy_limit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by stating the authentication requirement (creator's wallet) and clarifying the meaning of originEnergyLimit. It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter, and contains no redundant information.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and the key prerequisite (creator's wallet). It lacks explicit side-effect or alternative guidance, but the annotation context makes this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight semantic context for originEnergyLimit ('max energy the contract creator will pay per execution') beyond the schema, but does not compensate for the already well-documented parameters.

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'), the resource ('a contract's originEnergyLimit'), and explains what that value means ('max energy the contract creator will pay per execution'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contract_setting, which would handle broader settings.

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 usage when adjusting the originEnergyLimit, and the prerequisite 'Requires the contract creator's wallet' provides important context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, which would elevate it to a 5.

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