Execute Strata IntentBook control

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the Vault session verifies and signs, Strata pays the network fee, and under certain price conditions it prepares the packet without signing. The word 'permanently' makes the destructive annotation concrete. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by signing/fee behavior and then the conditional exception. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 mutation tool with destructive effects, six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and expected failure conditions. The ambiguous 'Under ask, or above a limits ceiling' clause needs parameter-level grounding to be actionable.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies the action enum (post/revoke) indirectly. It does not explain side, marketId, maxPriceAtoms, minPriceAtoms, or maxFillSizeAtoms. The phrase 'under ask, or above a limits ceiling' hints at price limits but does not map to specific parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Post or permanently revoke an existing curated IntentBook seat', which makes the core operation clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the one-call framing distinguishes it from prepare/submit flows. Slight jargon around 'curated IntentBook seat' and the conditional non-signing clause keep it from full clarity.

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 when to use it: when you want to post or revoke in a single call. It does not explicitly say when to prefer market_making_pare, submit_and_wait, or another sibling. The ask/limits-ceiling sentence gives behavioral context, not selection guidance.

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