blockchain_events_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that delete-subscription stops webhook delivery and that delete/activate require confirmation via a preview + one-time token rather than executing immediately. It also reports per-action credit cost and points to response headers for actual credits. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or preview/token expiry nuances (the token TTL lives only in the schema).

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?

Purpose and action list are front-loaded and scannable as bullets, and the confirmation caveat is clearly flagged. The credits block is repetitive (four identical entries plus a boilerplate disclaimer), which costs some density.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action surface, the destructive-action confirmation flow, and the cost model well. It is a bit thin on the actual return shape of list-subscriptions (only 'paginated'), but that is a minor gap.

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% and the schema already documents every parameter, including limit/offset paging scope and the confirmationToken approval workflow. The description maps actions to referenceId usage ('get, delete, activate'), but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Manage existing webhook subscriptions for on-chain events') and enumerates the four supported actions with a one-line gloss each. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling blockchain_events_create by scoping management to subscriptions 'created via blockchain_events_create'.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('to view, delete, or re-activate event subscriptions') and points at the sibling blockchain_events_create for creation, giving a clear create-vs-manage split. There is no explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the action routing makes selection unambiguous.

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