write.account.deposit

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

Description adds that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (not executed) and auto-detects account version on-chain, which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true) and provides context beyond them.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences, front-loading core purpose and including key details without redundancy. Slightly longer due to critical usage notes, but still 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description covers necessary context: purpose, prerequisites, sibling relationships, and parameter nuances. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable.

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. Description adds value by clarifying asset type support (ERC20, ERC721), emphasizing optionality of asset_types (V4 only, inference), and account_version auto-detection.

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?

Description clearly states it builds an unsigned transaction to deposit assets into an Arcadia account as collateral, specifying supported asset types (ERC20, ERC721) and distinguishing from similar tools like write.account.add_liquidity.

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?

Explicitly states it is NOT needed before write.account.add_liquidity and provides prerequisite steps (check allowances, approve if needed), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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