adjust_rob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical behavioral trait that this returns 'an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' indicating it is a transaction builder requiring external signing rather than immediate execution. It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or specific auth requirements beyond the signing implication.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first front-loads the core action with parenthetical mechanics, while the second clearly states the return format. There is no redundant information; every clause provides necessary context for tool selection or invocation.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying the return value format (unsigned CBOR hex transaction). With 100% schema coverage and clear parameter semantics covered in the description, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool, though prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing ROB position) are not explicitly stated.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the business logic for lovelacesAdjustAmount (increase vs decrease), clarifies that newMaxPrice is optional ('Optionally update'), and frames robTxHash/robOutputIndex as identifying the 'ROB position' rather than just raw UTXO coordinates.

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 specific action ('Adjust ADA amount'), the resource ('ROB position'), and distinguishes from siblings like adjust_sp_account and adjust_staking_position by specifying the ROB context. It includes the directional mechanics (positive/negative) in the same sentence.

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 implicit usage guidance for the lovelacesAdjustAmount parameter ('positive to increase, negative to decrease') and notes the optionality of the max price update. However, it lacks explicit comparison with sibling ROB tools (cancel_rob, redeem_rob, claim_rob) to clarify when to adjust versus close or redeem a position.

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