update_manual_crypto

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true. The description adds the constraint that only manual crypto assets (source=manual) can be updated, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects or authorization needs beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and the critical constraint. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential usage constraint. However, it lacks mention of return values (e.g., the updated asset) and could benefit from a brief note on the response. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the crypto_id parameter by specifying it must come from get_all_crypto with source=manual, which is not in the schema description. Other parameters are not elaborated further, but the addition for the key parameter lifts the score.

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 clearly states the action ('update') and the specific resource ('manually-managed crypto asset'), and differentiates from synced crypto assets by requiring the id from get_all_crypto with source=manual.

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 implies that the id must come from get_all_crypto, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating synced crypto or other update tools. No direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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