icp_top_up_canister

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it explains the conversion mechanism, it does not mention that ICP is spent, whether login is required, or any irreversible side effects. This is a potential gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but as a financial operation it lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or expected outcomes. Still, the core action is adequately conveyed.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (canister_id and amount_icp) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but also doesn't need to given schema completeness.

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 function: adding cycles to an existing canister via ICP conversion through CMC. It uses a specific verb (Add cycles), identifies the resource (existing canister), and distinguishes from siblings like icp_to_cycles by specifying the target canister.

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 implies the use case (topping up an existing canister) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like icp_to_cycles or icp_cycles_withdraw. It would benefit from saying when to use this over other cycle-related tools.

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