Lock token metadata permanently

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that the destruction is irreversible ('can never be changed') and which fields are affected, plus the authorization requirement. It does not cover failure modes, cost, or whether the signature can be reused, which keeps it from a 5.

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, with the irreversible consequence front-loaded in capitals before the procedural guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation the description covers the essential agent-facing concerns: irreversibility, consent, ordering, and prerequisite signing. Remaining gaps are the mechanics of the timestamp/signature payload, which the schema also leaves thin.

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 only 25% (only chainId is documented), so the description must compensate and only partially does: it identifies that 'signature' must originate from prepare_metadata_message. It says nothing about 'timestamp' semantics (freshness window, format) or what the 'token' address must correspond to.

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?

Names a specific action (permanently locking token metadata) and immediately enumerates the affected fields (logo, description, links), so the agent knows exactly what resource is touched. It is clearly distinct from siblings like save_metadata or get_metadata because the permanence is stated up front.

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 gives ordering ('Call it last'), a consent precondition ('only with the owner's explicit confirmation'), and the required prerequisite tool ('freshly signed message from prepare_metadata_message'). An agent has no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate versus the other metadata siblings.

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