create_mee_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context: the result is a preparation artifact that is not an authoritative simulation, submission, or settlement. This is real behavioral value beyond the annotation flags, though it says nothing about persistence or what the created bundle contains.

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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. The bracketed metadata prefix (capability tier, API path, authority endpoint) is mildly noisy but carries operational signal.

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 tool that constructs a nested, multi-step bundle there is no output schema and no explanation of what creation returns (an intent id? a stored draft?). The description establishes the safety posture but leaves the feedback loop — what to do with the created bundle next — unaddressed.

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 neither of the two parameters is mentioned in the description. Only the phrase 'cross-chain intent bundle' hints at what a step list represents; the required shape of steps (chainId, targetProtocol, action, params, estimatedGasUsd) and the ownerAddress format are entirely undocumented outside the raw JSON schema.

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 has a specific verb ('Create') and a precisely bounded resource ('a preparation-only MEE-shaped cross-chain intent bundle'). It also implicitly separates itself from sibling tools by negating simulation, submission, and settlement, though it never names simulate_mee_intent or submit_mee_intent directly.

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?

'preparation-only' plus 'not authoritative simulation, submission, or settlement' tells the agent this is the pre-step in a prepare→simulate→submit chain, which is useful implied usage. However, it never names the sibling tools to use instead, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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