Prepare Strata Vault pause

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying 'owner-authorized' (a permission requirement) and outlining the multi-step flow (verification, signing, broadcast), which aligns with the openWorldHint and destructiveHint annotations. This helps an agent understand the real-world side effects and prerequisites that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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?

A single, 14-word sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key term 'pause or resume' appears early.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, authorization, and workflow. It could be slightly more explicit about the return value (e.g., a serialized transaction), but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool in the broader process.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to compensate by explaining the meaning of 'paused' (true=pause, false=resume) and the role of 'walletAddress' (owner's address), but it does not. An agent is left to infer from the tool name and param names, which is risky for a boolean flag that toggles behavior.

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 ('Prepare') with a clear resource ('owner-authorized pause or resume transaction') and explains the downstream purpose ('for external verification, signing, and broadcast'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strata_vault_submit and strata_vault_status, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 'for external verification, signing, and broadcast' clearly implies this is a preparation step, not the final submission, and thus belongs earlier in the workflow. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to use for submission, the context strongly indicates the correct usage pattern without confusion.

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