Approve Permit2 for IMD (once)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is an on-chain, state-changing transaction, that it costs ETH gas, and that it is a one-time operation gated behind confirm: true. It omits failure/revert behavior and what happens on a second invocation, but the cost and irreversibility signals are the key ones for an agent.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: context (Permit2 routing), the action plus its cost, then the hard invocation requirement. The critical prerequisite is front-loaded in the final, unmissable position.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the action does, its gas cost, its one-time nature, and the confirm gate. It stops short of describing error/revert outcomes or the prerequisite that a wallet must already be configured, which the phrase "from the configured wallet" only implies.

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 0% – the single confirm parameter has only a boolean type and a default of false. The description compensates directly by stating "Requires confirm: true", which explains both the meaning of the flag and the value needed to actually execute.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it sends the one-time ERC-20 approval from the configured wallet via Permit2. This is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding draft/order/track/status tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the condition that selects it (IMD payments route through Permit2, so this approval is needed) and the invocation prerequisite (confirm: true). It also signals "one-time", implying the agent should not repeat it. However, it never states what to do if an approval already exists or names a setup alternative.

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