setCollateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating the state-changing effect on the connected wallet and the key protocol constraint about one active isolated asset. It does not mention gas transactions, reversion behavior, or that toggling collateral affects health factor/liquidation risk, but the core action and its main edge case are disclosed clearly.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, the second gives the broader purpose, and the third provides an actionable protocol rule. Every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, principal constraint, and isolated-mode sequencing. It does not explain return values or prerequisite state (e.g., asset must be supplied), but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the main intended scenarios.

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 both parameters are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond naming WiKAS/IKAS, which is already present in the asset property list. This is baseline acceptable.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('enable or disable'), a specific resource ('an asset as collateral'), and a scope ('for the connected wallet on Kaskad Protocol'). It is clearly distinct from sibling actions like supply, borrow, or withdraw because it targets collateral status rather than liquidity or debt.

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 says when the tool is required: switching between isolated (WiKAS/IKAS) and standard collateral modes. It also gives an actionable rule for Aave v3 isolation mode: disable other collaterals before enabling an isolated asset. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling provides the same collateral-toggle function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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