zest_repay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that repayment includes accrued interest and that the protocol is mainnet-only — non-obvious facts an agent would otherwise have to discover on-chain. However, it never states that this is a signed, gas-paying transaction requiring an unlocked wallet and an existing borrow position, nor whether token approval/allowance is needed first — significant omissions for a funds-moving call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then mechanics, then the mainnet caveat. Four short lines, each carrying information. The closing tip is a mild tangent to repayment but is a cheap and useful cross-sell pointer.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation on a lending protocol, the description covers the protocol constraint and interest behavior but leaves out the wallet/approval prerequisites and what a successful repayment yields. Adequate to call, thin on 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (asset, amount, onBehalfOf) are already documented in structured data. The description restates the symbol-or-contract-ID option for asset but adds no syntax, formatting, or unit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Repay borrowed assets to Zest Protocol') plus the market version, and the collateral/repay distinction is immediately separable from siblings zest_borrow, zest_supply, and zest_withdraw. An agent can route here without opening any other schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions: Zest is mainnet-only, and the asset may be a symbol or full contract ID. It also cross-references earning_opportunities for the post-repay path. What's missing is the counterpart direction (when to use zest_borrow vs zest_repay) and any prerequisite that a borrow position must already exist.

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