hedera_append_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes the transaction is unsigned, but omits side effects (e.g., changes to file), error conditions, permissions required, or return format. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 very short (14 words) and front-loads the key idea, but it lacks necessary details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or parameter usage, leaving significant gaps for an append operation.

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 0%, and the description provides no clarification on the purpose of 'fileId', 'contents', or 'payerAccountId'. The tool's purpose hints that 'contents' is the data to append, but no details on format or constraints.

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 tool appends to an existing file and is designed for large bytecode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and delete by specifying 'append' and 'larger than one transaction'. However, it could be more explicit about building an unsigned transaction.

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 for large data that exceeds a single transaction limit, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., hedera_update_file). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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