add_allowlist_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (agent key floe_...), the conditional enforcement behavior (only after set_allowlist_mode), and the nature of the entry (allowed-AND-capped). This is sufficient for a straightforward add operation, though it does not mention side effects like overwriting or duplicate handling.

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 three sentences with zero filler. Each sentence carries essential information: purpose, kind usage, enforcement condition, and auth requirement. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 creation tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisite mode, and auth. It omits the optional match_kind parameter, but the schema fully documents it, so the description remains largely complete for correct invocation.

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 100% and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by connecting kind to match_key semantics (host vs recipient wallet) and clarifying that limit_raw is in raw USDC with 6 decimals, reinforcing the cap concept. It does not mention optional match_kind, but the schema covers that.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('merchant-allowlist entry'), and clarifies it as an 'allowed-AND-capped' policy row. It explicitly differentiates the two kinds (api vs vendor), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_allowlist_entry or set_allowlist_mode.

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 clearly explains when to use kind='api' (hostname) vs kind='vendor' (payee wallet) and notes that enforcement only occurs after set_allowlist_mode is set, implying the need to use that tool in conjunction. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one.

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