compose_attach

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the useful 'specific UTXO' target constraint, but does not disclose return values, whether the transaction is unsigned, or other side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb and resource immediately and is appropriately concise for the action.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only states the high-level purpose. It omits important context such as how destination_vout relates to attachment, what the composed transaction returns, and how this differs from sibling compose tools (e.g., compose_detach).

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% for all 6 parameters, so the structured schema already provides meaning for each parameter. The description does not add parameter-level context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and clearly identifies the resource/action: attaching Counterparty tokens to a specific UTXO. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as compose_detach and compose_send.

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 attaching tokens to a UTXO) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance relative to sibling compose tools. For example, it does not mention compose_detach as the inverse operation.

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