hedera_update_token

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (not a direct update) and requires the admin key to sign. This is crucial behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects, idempotency, or output behavior.

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 sentence of 26 words, efficiently conveying action, updatable fields, and a key requirement. No redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides decent context (build unsigned, updatable fields, admin key). However, it omits explaining 'unsigned', that tokenId is required, the role of payerAccountId, and whether multiple fields can be updated simultaneously.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing updatable fields (name, symbol, memo, treasury). It covers 5 of 6 parameters, missing payerAccountId. It adds meaning by explaining that these are fields to update, but lacks detail 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 action: 'Build (unsigned) an update to a token', specifies the updatable fields (name, symbol, memo, or treasury), and mentions a key requirement (admin key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or transfer tokens.

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 the tool is for updating token properties but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like hedera_create_fungible_token or hedera_delete_token. No guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed beyond the admin key.

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