set_low_balance_alert

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that email alerts fire when balance drops below threshold, implying a mutation and a monitoring behavior. However, it does not explain whether the threshold overwrites previous values, whether it requires an existing signer, or any other side effects.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, the second explains the behavior. Properly 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 setter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and effect. It could mention the return value (e.g., confirmation or updated signer config), but it is mostly complete.

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 100%, but the description adds value by linking the threshold to email alerts, which is not in the schema. This provides operational context beyond the parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the action ('set the low-balance threshold') and the resource ('KMS signer'), and mentions the consequence (email alerts). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_balance' or 'get_signer'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set threshold vs. check current balance). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information provided.

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