Lends Prepare Approve Usdg For Psm

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that this constructs rather than executes an approval, but it does not disclose output shape or other behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the purpose immediately and packs the necessary differentiating context into very few words.

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 one-parameter prepare tool with strong safety annotations, the core action is clear and concise. However, the required 'amount' parameter is unexplained in both the schema and the description, and no return value is described, leaving a small but real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions the 'amount' parameter. The meaning is only weakly inferable from 'USDG approval', leaving units, decimal handling, and whether this is an exact or max allowance undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Construct'), identifies the asset ('USDG'), and gives the purpose ('for a PSM swap into leUSD'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_psm by naming both the token and the swap direction.

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 phrase 'for a PSM swap into leUSD' gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the exclusion of the leUSD approval siblings.

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