build_set_remarks_unsigned

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: constraints (max 32, unique names, byte limits), cost (+1 drop/byte), encoding (hex vs UTF-8), return value (unsigned JSON + preflight), and side effects (no signing). It also clarifies ownership requirements.

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 concise, with two dense sentences covering the core purpose, constraints, and return. Both sentences earn their place without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 complexity of building a transaction with nested remarks, the description is complete: it specifies inputs, constraints, output format, and safety note (no signing). No output schema exists, but the description covers return value. No gaps identified.

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?

Despite low schema coverage (25%), the description adds significant meaning: it explains the remarks structure (name required, value omitted for delete, immutable flag), the hex encoding, and the purpose of each parameter (account as owner, objectId as target). This complements the schema well.

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 verb (assemble/build unsigned), the resource (SetRemarks transaction), and the specific actions (attach, update, delete key-value remarks). It distinguishes from sibling build tools by specifying the transaction type and its purpose, such as powering dynamic NFTs.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for remark management on owned objects or issued tokens) and notes that it never signs and defaults to testnet. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tools cover different transaction types.

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