update_manual_crypto

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true already conveys idempotency. The description adds useful constraints: 'At least one of... must be supplied' and 'The symbol... cannot be changed.' These are not in the annotations and add value. However, the description does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling or whether omitted fields retain their values, which leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences, each essential. It front-loads the purpose and immediately gives the critical 'at least one' requirement and the symbol immutability constraint. No word is wasted.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required, idempotentHint), the description covers the main purpose, the validation rule, and a key behavioral limitation. It doesn't mention that omitted fields remain unchanged, but the schema's null descriptions and partial-update phrasing imply it. With no output schema, this is adequate.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial cross-parameter rule not in the schema: at least one of name, display_name, institution_name, or balance must be supplied. This goes beyond the schema's required crypto_id and clarifies validation logic.

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 'Update a manually-managed crypto balance,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/get manual crypto and from synced crypto tools. The added constraints about required fields and immutable symbol further clarify its role.

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 phrase 'manually-managed' sets a clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is unambiguous. The schema's crypto_id description also notes that synced crypto cannot be updated, reinforcing the manual-only scope.

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