Drift Deposit

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

Annotations already indicate a state-modifying operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds only the general purpose ('trading or lending') but does not disclose specific behaviors like confirmation requirements, fees, or output format. The behavioral transparency is minimal beyond 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?

Two sentences: first is concise and front-loaded with core purpose. The second sentence introduces SAP context which, while possibly useful, is tangential to the tool's primary function and slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

The description is brief but adequate for a simple deposit tool with good schema coverage and an output schema. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., existence of Drift account) and does not explain the subAccountId parameter's significance beyond the schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (mint, amount, wallet, subAccountId). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('deposit tokens') and the target resource ('a Drift account') with the purpose ('for trading or lending'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drift_borrow, drift_lend, and other deposit tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lulo_deposit or other Drift tools. The SAP context mention is about other tools, not this tool's usage. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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