zest_supply

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 deposits are atomic and automatically add collateral, and that supplied assets earn yield while providing borrowing power. It does not disclose wallet prerequisites, irreversibility, fees, approval requirements, or what the tool returns after execution.

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, and well-organized. The opening sentence states the core action, and the remaining lines add relevant constraints and context without unnecessary repetition.

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 transactional tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, supported assets, atomic behavior, collateral effect, and mainnet availability. It still leaves out operational prerequisites such as wallet state, fees, failure behavior, and response format, but is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by listing supported assets (wSTX, sBTC, stSTX, USDC, USDH, stSTXbtc) and reiterating that asset can be a symbol or full contract ID. It does not elaborate on amount formatting beyond the schema's 'smallest units' note.

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: supply assets to Zest Protocol's v0-4-market. It also clarifies that this deposits assets and enables them as collateral in one atomic operation, which distinguishes it from borrow, withdraw, or repay actions.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for supplying supported assets on Zest mainnet, with a note that Zest is mainnet-only. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as zest_borrow, zest_withdraw, or pillar_supply.

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