update_witness

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or network-specific behavior. It does add the prerequisite that the wallet must already be an SR, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the update is reversible or if it affects anything beyond the URL, though annotations already cover safety hints.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It earns its place by adding the prerequisite. No redundant information. Slightly terse but acceptable for a simple update.

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?

With 2 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential prerequisite but lacks details about network-specific behavior or confirmation of the update. For a simple update this is adequate, though it could mention the effect of the 'network' parameter on which wallet's URL is updated.

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 description of 'url' and 'network' in the schema is sufficient. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but it does state 'URL' and 'mainnet' default. Since schema is complete, a baseline of 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 the SR node website URL') and the resource ('the configured wallet' / SR), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like update_account or create_witness. It does not explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools, but the verb+resource+target is clear enough.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'must already be an SR'. This implies when to use the tool (for existing SRs) and implicitly excludes creating a witness or updating other account info. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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