Prepare Strata Vault deposit

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

Annotations only mark readOnly false, but the description adds key behavioral detail: the tool is non-idempotent (first deposit registers session), requires owner funding, and uses opaque IDs. It doesn't mention side effects like fees or reversibility, but the description goes beyond annotations by explaining the session registration nuance, which is valuable for an agent invoking mutation.

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, directly states the core function, and highlights a critical behavioral nuance without fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 deposit preparation tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the key caveat about session registration. It lacks details about return values or error scenarios, but given the output schema is absent, it is reasonably complete for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 covers parameters but no additional meaning; description doesn't explain the purpose of each field (e.g., why amountAtoms is required, or what sessionPublicKey is used for beyond the first deposit). It mentions the session public key in passing, which adds a hint, but does not fully compensate for no schema descriptions.

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 tool prepares a Vault deposit and highlights the special behavior of session registration on first deposit, which differentiates it from sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with a specific sibling, so while clear, it doesn't fully leverage sibling differentiation.

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 (exact owner-funded deposit, market and asset IDs) and hints at a prerequisite (first deposit registers session). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is understandable and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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