xrp_remove_trustline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'set limit to 0', implying a mutable operation, but does not disclose that it submits a signed transaction, requires fees, or produces a transaction hash. It also does not mention reversibility or 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, transaction signing, fee requirements, or network effects, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full implications of invoking it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; the phrase 'set limit to 0' provides context but not parameter-specific semantics. It neither clarifies formats nor adds missing information.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'trustline', with the semantic clarification 'set limit to 0'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrp_create_trustline or xrp_get_trustlines.

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 description implies the tool is used for removing a trustline, which is clear in context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or get trustlines), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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