managed_sell

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible external-facing write. The description adds useful context that the payload is encrypted and submitted through the GDEX backend, but says nothing about what gets destroyed, confirmation requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the terseness is partly why usage and prerequisite context are missing.

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 destructive, external, payload-driven mutation with no output schema, the description omits how computedData is produced, what response to expect, and how status is checked (managed_trade_status). Annotations carry the safety profile but the operational gaps remain.

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%, so tip, chainId, slippage and computedData are already documented. The description's only addition is the word 'encrypted', which loosely reinforces computedData; it adds no format or construction detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (submit), resource (managed-custody sell trade), and mechanism (encrypted, via GDEX backend). An agent can distinguish it from a plain sell_token or limit_sell, though the description never names the sibling it is the counterpart of (managed_purchase) to reinforce the split.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. With siblings like sell_token, limit_sell, managed_purchase and gdex_execute_trade all in scope, the agent is left to infer that this is the managed-custody path and that it needs a pre-built encrypted payload.

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