write.account.set_asset_managers

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description adds that the tool returns an unsigned transaction (not executed), and explains the transaction building process. It does not repeat annotations but complements them with context about aggregation.

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 concise—three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and an example. No redundant information. Structurally front-loaded with the main action.

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 that builds a transaction from intent outputs, the description covers purpose, parameter relationships, how to combine multiple intents, and the return format (implicitly via output schema). No gaps remain.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions. The tool description adds critical meaning: it explains that the arrays must come from intent tools and should be concatenated for multiple automations. This goes well beyond the 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 builds an unsigned setAssetManagers transaction from intent tool arrays. It specifies the resource (setAssetManagers transaction) and distinguishes from sibling write.asset_manager.* tools by explaining it aggregates multiple automation arrays into a single transaction.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'To combine multiple automations in one tx, concatenate the arrays from multiple intent tool calls before passing them here.' It includes an example of enabling rebalancer + merkl_operator, making the usage crystal clear.

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