build_remit_unsigned

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auto-creating missing trustlines, paying token reserves, creating destination account if absent, all-or-nothing execution, and returning unsigned JSON + preflight + offline signing instructions. It also clarifies it never signs and defaults to testnet.

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 dense paragraph that conveys essential information without excessive verbosity. While it could benefit from bullet points for readability, it is efficient 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, behaviors, return type, and default network. It does not cover error scenarios or limits, but it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 60%, so the description adds value by explaining high-level behavior (e.g., 'Optionally Inform a third-party hook' for the 'inform' parameter). It does not detail every parameter but provides context that supplements the schema. For example, it explains that amounts can be native or issued tokens.

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's purpose: assembling an unsigned Remit (XLS-55) for Xahau's atomic multi-asset push payment. It specifies the actions: sending multiple currencies, transferring URITokens, minting new URITokens, all in a single all-or-nothing transaction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_payment_unsigned, which handles simpler payments.

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 when to use this tool: when you need atomic multi-asset push payments with auto trustlines and account creation. It explicitly states it does not support partial payments or pathing, guiding users away from those use cases. However, it does not directly compare to alternatives like build_payment_unsigned, which could be clearer.

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