update_wallet_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that transaction_type '1' adds and '2' subtracts, and requires specific fields. However, it omits details such as whether the operation is reversible, authorization requirements, or error behavior, which are important for a financial mutation.

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 action, followed by key detail on transaction_type and required fields. No extraneous text.

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 5 required params and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and transaction type logic. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, or validation rules beyond the schema constraints, which is minimally adequate.

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% (each parameter has a description). The description adds value by summarizing required params and explaining transaction_type values ('1' for add, '2' for subtract) and noting that amount (monto) is positive. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool adds or subtracts balance from a contact's wallet, using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_balance (read-only) and list_wallets (list operation).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_payment_request or get_wallet_contact. The description only lists required parameters but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid.

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