pillar_auto_compound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the core behavior (a keeper automatically boosts the position when sBTC exceeds the threshold), which is genuinely useful. But it omits whether this is an on-chain mutation requiring an existing position or approval, how to disable it, and whether the keeper costs anything — meaningful gaps for a state-changing 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and the keeper mechanic front-loaded; the trailing 'Tip' is brief and plausibly useful, though it is somewhat tangential to invocation.

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 small two-parameter configuration tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but leaves the disable path, prerequisites, and sibling disambiguation (pillar_direct_auto_compound) unaddressed.

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% and both params (minSbtc, trigger) are clearly documented in the schema, including the sats unit and the 'above minimum' relationship. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (configure) and resource (auto-compound for the Pillar wallet) and explains the effect: a keeper boosts the position once sBTC accumulates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling pillar_direct_auto_compound, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only routing guidance is a 'Tip' pointing to earning_opportunities, which is an adjacent strategy tool rather than an alternative to this one. There is no guidance on when to enable vs. leave off, what preconditions exist (e.g. an existing Pillar position), or how this differs from pillar_direct_auto_compound.

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