build_signer_list_set_unsigned

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'Never signs' and rejects unreachable quorum, but lacks details on what happens with invalid accounts or whether it returns a transaction blob. More behavioral context is needed.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses clear language. However, the informal 'ROTATION WIZARD alt' phrasing slightly reduces clarity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the return value (e.g., unsigned transaction blob) or usage workflow. Leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, but description only explains quorum=0 removal. The signers array, account, and network parameters are not described. Minimal compensation for lack of schema descriptions.

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 SignerListSet (multisig) transaction. It contrasts with disable-master and mentions safety for high-value accounts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_sethook_unsigned.

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 when to use (safer than disable-master for high-value accounts) and when quorum=0 removes the list. It warns against unreachable quorum. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives among the many build_*_unsigned siblings.

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