Convert Qi to QUAI (Two-Step Confirmation)

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating and destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the preview call needs no password, the preview cannot verify Qi balance because of wallet reconstruction, and a confirm may fail with insufficient funds after a clean preview with the failure reported plainly and no silent retry. This goes well beyond the annotations and matches them.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: core action, sibling relationship, two-step flow, and a critical failure caveat. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then layers usage and risk information efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides prerequisites (wallet must come from create_qi_wallet/import_qi_wallet), the two-step invocation pattern, the need for confirmationToken and password, and the possible late insufficient-funds failure. An agent has effectively all the contextual information needed to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a temporal dimension beyond isolated property descriptions, linking confirm, confirmationToken, and password into the two-step flow and clarifying that the first call omits confirm. It reinforces that amount is in Qi, though the schema already states this.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert'), resource ('Qi held in a wallet created with create_qi_wallet/import_qi_wallet'), and target ('a QUAI-ledger address'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming itself 'the other half of Quai's native ledger swap' and pointing to the reverse path in send_transaction.

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 routes to alternatives: 'see get_conversion_rate and send_transaction's QUAI -> Qi path.' It gives precise when-to-use guidance by describing the two-step preview/confirm pattern and exactly when password and confirmationToken are required, leaving no ambiguity about the call sequence.

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