fluid_build_vault_t3_operate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It only discloses that the output is an unsigned transaction, but does not explain the operational effects (e.g., collateral changes, debt changes, slippage protection) or any prerequisites like approvals. This is minimal disclosure for a transaction-building tool.

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 with no redundant information. It is concise, though it could be expanded with more useful detail; still, it earns its place.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the semantics of the vault type or how parameters relate (e.g., collateral vs debt changes), and it provides no information about the return value. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding when to use it and what to expect.

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%, so parameters like chain, nft_id, new_col, and debt_shares_min/max are already explained. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, only the vault type context, which is not parameter-specific. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Build an unsigned transaction' and the resource 'Vault T3', and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the vault type 'single-asset collateral, dual-asset debt'. This directly differentiates it from T1, T2, and T4 vault operate tools.

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 usage for interacting with Vault T3 positions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., T1/T2/T4). It does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios like opening, adjusting, or closing a position.

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