fluid_build_vault_t2_operate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'build an unsigned transaction,' which implies no execution, but it doesn't specify the return format, supported operations (open/adjust/close), or any required authentication/input conditions. The parenthetical about collateral type adds domain context but not behavioral transparency.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. The parenthetical adds useful domain distinction without redundancy.

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 with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the operation modes (e.g., nft_id 0 opens a new position), the balance of collateral and debt, or how this tool fits into the broader vault interaction workflow. The brief description leaves the agent to infer significant context from the schema alone.

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 90%, with 9 of 10 parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and it doesn't clarify the role of rpc_url (the only undocumented parameter) or the relationship between collateral amounts and debt.

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 builds an unsigned transaction for a Vault T2, with a specific verb+resource. It adds a brief definition of T2 (dual-asset collateral, single-asset debt), which helps differentiate from T1/T3/T4 vault types, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 sibling vault operate tools (T1, T3, T4) or other transaction builders. The description only states what the tool does, with no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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