build_import_unsigned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool never signs, defaults to testnet, and returns unsigned JSON and offline instructions. This provides adequate behavioral disclosure for a non-destructive assembly tool.

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?

Concise at 2-3 sentences with front-loaded action verb. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output format, and safety caveat. No wasted words.

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 tool is a simple assembler with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, output type, network default, and safety. However, it misses explaining the account parameter's meaning and lacks mention of required fields beyond the schema.

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 low (33%), and the description only adds minimal meaning for xpopBlobHex ('HEX-encoded XPOP'). The 'account' and 'network' parameters are not explained beyond default values, leaving ambiguity about their roles.

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 assembles an UNSIGNED Import (Burn2Mint) transaction using a HEX-encoded XPOP, returns unsigned JSON and offline instructions, and never signs. It distinguishes from sibling build tools by focusing on import transactions and unsigned nature.

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 use for creating unsigned import transactions but lacks explicit when/why to use vs. alternatives. It mentions 'Never signs; testnet by default' but provides no comparison with other build_*_unsigned tools.

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