Generate safe Xahau settlement

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool generates safe-by-construction commands and that the ledger enforces spend caps, which aligns with the hints and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences plus a tagline, packed with relevant jargon and purpose. It is concise but could benefit from clearer structure, e.g., bullet points for output items.

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 complexity (4 params, output schema, siblings), the description adequately conveys the main outputs but omits details like return value format, prerequisites (e.g., cluster account must exist), and when to choose this over similar tools. The output schema likely covers return, but usage context is lacking.

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 high (75%), but the description enhances parameter understanding by linking limit_drops to the LIM hook param and dest to the DST lock, adding domain-specific meaning that the schema's generic descriptions lack.

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 specifies that the tool generates Xahau payout code, hook install commands, and a prove command for settlements. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like generate_contract or generate_deploy_commands, though its domain-specific jargon differentiates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_templates or generate_contract. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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