Stellar Account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the tool 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk', which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, network access, or potential errors, but for a code generator, these are less relevant. The description adequately signals that no persistent changes are made.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two short paragraphs. It front-loads the primary purpose, then immediately discloses the output format and lack of disk write. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundant phrases. This is an ideal example of efficient writing.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and output format. Since the schema already documents all parameters in detail (100% coverage), the description does not need to repeat those. It provides a use-case example and side-effect transparency, which are the missing pieces. It could be more complete by mentioning that policy contracts are required for threshold policies, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful example ('multisig with passkey, Ed25519 and delegated signers') that illustrates how parameters like webauthnSigners, ed25519Signers, and delegatedSigners interact, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents. This is sufficient, but not above the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: to generate a smart account contract on Stellar with configurable signers and policies. It provides a concrete example (multisig with passkey, Ed25519, and delegated signers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stellar-fungible or stellar-governor by its focus on account contracts. The verb 'Make' combined with the resource 'smart account contract' is specific.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a Stellar smart account with specific authorization logic. It gives an example of multisig use cases, which suggests typical scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives (e.g., 'for a simpler account, use X'). Still, the context from sibling names and the description's clarity provide sufficient guidance for most cases.

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