pillar_add_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the backup admin can help recover funds, which is useful security context, but it does not state whether this is an on-chain transaction, what authentication is required, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions the admin receives.

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 core description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is followed by an unrelated cross-sell tip for `earning_opportunities`. That tip does not help an agent invoke this tool correctly and dilutes focus.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits operational context such as whether a wallet must already exist, whether this requires wallet unlock or signature, what happens on failure, and what the result looks like.

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%, so the single `adminAddress` parameter is fully documented by the input schema. The description adds only a high-level mention of the admin address and does not provide extra format or validation details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: add a backup admin address to a Pillar smart wallet. It also explains the recovery purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `pillar_direct_add_admin`, which likely performs a similar function.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: recovery if the user loses access to their passkey. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name an alternative sibling tool, and the `earning_opportunities` tip is unrelated to usage guidance.

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