add_tokens_to_vesting

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

Annotations are absent, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'add more tokens' but doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or return value. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence is concise but at the expense of crucial details. It earns its place but lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for parameters or examples).

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It omits what the agent needs to know: authentication, effects on vesting state, error conditions, and response format.

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 0% and description adds no meaning to parameters. 'vesting_id' and 'amount' are not explained; the agent must infer their roles from parameter names alone. No constraints or formats provided.

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 clearly states the action (add more tokens) and the target (existing vesting). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_cliff_vesting' and 'extend_vesting' by focusing on token addition rather than creation or time extension.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It implies use for an existing vesting but lacks context about alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid vesting_id), or comparison to other funding methods.

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