zest_enable_collateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful context such as "Mainnet only" and the relationship to zest_supply, but it does not state wallet/signature requirements, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to existing collateral positions.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every line earns its place. The note and tip are directly relevant to correct tool selection.

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 two-parameter DeFi action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, network, and the main alternative. It could mention expected position effects or transaction requirements, but it is otherwise complete enough to select and call the tool.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description says the tool adds zTokens as collateral but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraints beyond the schema's own asset and amount descriptions.

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 existing zTokens as collateral on Zest Protocol v2." It clearly distinguishes the tool from zest_supply by explaining that zest_supply handles the same action atomically via supply-collateral-add.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when you deposited directly to a vault and need to register those zTokens as collateral. It also names the alternative workflow and clarifies that this tool is only needed if vault deposit was done separately.

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