Save token metadata

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the max description length and the signature prerequisite, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether it overwrites existing metadata, whether it is irreversible after lock_metadata, what permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the main action first and the blocking prerequisite second; nothing is padded. It is efficient but perhaps a bit too terse given the 8-parameter mutation surface.

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?

A mutation tool with 8 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage needs substantially more from the description. Key facts (what happens on repeat calls, immutability/interaction with lock_metadata, return behavior) are absent.

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 only 13% (only chainId is documented), so the description should compensate. Instead it only loosely gestures at 'social links' (website, xHandle, telegram) and repeats the 500-char limit already in the schema via maxLength; token, timestamp, and signature semantics are unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Saves description ... and social links') for token metadata, and names the sibling tool (prepare_metadata_message) that produces the required signature, so an agent can distinguish it from the prepare step. It does not mention chainId/token/timestamp, so the full scope is only partly conveyed.

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 prerequisite 'Needs a signature from prepare_metadata_message' implies a workflow ordering and routes the agent to the right sibling. However, it gives no when-not guidance versus get_metadata or lock_metadata, and no prerequisites around ownership or timing.

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