yield_hunter_configure

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 one worthwhile behavior the schema cannot: 'Changes take effect on the next check cycle.' However, for a mutation tool it says nothing about permissions/auth, whether prior values are overwritten or merged, defaults when parameters are omitted (all three are optional), or validation of the sats/seconds values.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, the second line enumerates the settings, and the third supplies the behavioral timing note. The trailing tip is a slight detour but functions as a useful next-step pointer rather than filler.

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?

Three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, scope of mutation, and effect timing, which is a reasonable core, but it leaves the agent guessing about defaults for omitted fields, acceptable value ranges, and what the tool reports back on success.

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 each parameter carries its own unit and meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description names the same three concepts (threshold, reserve, interval) but adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as valid ranges, ordering constraints, or what happens on omission.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Configure yield hunter settings') and enumerates the three adjustable settings (deposit threshold, reserve, check interval), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close siblings yield_hunter_start, yield_hunter_stop, and yield_hunter_status; the 'configure' verb implies the distinction but leaves it for inference.

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 listing of adjustable settings implies when to call it, and the tip points to earning_opportunities for the related 'what to do next' workflow. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus yield_hunter_start/stop/status, no prerequisites, and no exclusions; usage is implied rather than stated.

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