build_sethook_unsigned

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the preflight analysis (analyze_hook with critical flagging), the return format (unsigned JSON + offline signing instructions), and the fact it never signs. This provides adequate transparency for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The first sentence captures the core action, preflight, and output; the second adds key constraints. Every word serves a 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 10 parameters (2 required, nested objects) and no output schema, the description outlines the purpose and preflight but does not explain the relationship between CreateCode and parameters, nor the exact content of the output. It is functional but leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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 only 10% (only namespace is documented). The description mentions 'from CreateCode + params' but does not explain what CreateCode refers to or detail the role of parameters like wasmHex, createCodeHex, grants, etc. The agent would lack understanding of how these parameters interact.

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?

Description clearly states the tool assembles an unsigned SetHook transaction, runs analyze_hook preflight, and flags critical findings. The verb 'build' combined with 'sethook_unsigned' precisely identifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling build tools for other transaction types.

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?

Explicitly states the tool never signs and defaults to testnet, guiding safe usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus other build_*_unsigned tools, though the name makes the use case clear.

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