Rebalance a vault to its configured target weights

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds substantial context beyond them: real-money gating, admin/rebalancer prerequisites, a 5s cooldown, manual-by-design policy, oracle-free guards (measured min_out, velocity ceilings, output-mint allowlist), and the conforming confirmPhrase protocol. It does not spell out reversibility/irreversibility of the swap legs explicitly, which keeps it just short of 5 for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the critical 'REAL-MONEY (gated)' and duty warning before mechanics, and nearly every sentence earns its place (prereqs, cooldown, guards, routing). Some clauses are dense and interleaved, but no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description still supplies the key return signal (`converged:true` when balanced), all prerequisites, the safety envelope, and the routing alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%, with vault and slippageBps undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by clarifying that no mints or amounts are supplied (the API derives legs from drift), but slippageBps bounds and vault address format are never addressed in prose. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (converges live holdings to CURRENT config target weights) and explicitly separates itself from update_vault_assets, which changes targets rather than converging to them. An agent can tell exactly what state transition this tool performs.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('never fire this unasked', manual by design #35), prerequisites (vault you ADMIN, initialized rebalancer via launch_vault or init_rebalancer), and a named alternative for a different intent (update_vault_assets to change targets first). Routes the agent rather than leaving it to infer.

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