stellar_submit_fee_bump_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it submits a fee bump transaction but does not explain side effects (e.g., irreversible fee increase) or what happens to the inner transaction. The description is neither contradictory nor deceptive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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 description explains what the tool does but lacks output expectations (e.g., transaction hash) and does not cover prerequisites like sufficient balance for the fee account. For a submission tool, more context about success/failure would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema provides detailed parameter information. The description adds a useful default for maxFee ('Defaults to a reasonable minimum') but does not substantially enhance understanding of the XDR format or account requirement.

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 action ('Sponsor the fees for an existing transaction') and that it submits to the network. It uses a specific verb ('Sponsor') and resource ('fees'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stellar_submit_payment.

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 usage when one wants to sponsor fees for an existing transaction, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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