assetfare_prepare_cctp_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it requires caller approval, advances preparation state, and explicitly does not receive the private key, sign, or submit. This is useful for an agent deciding whether this is the right mutation step. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then usage constraints, then exclusions. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling differentiation is woven in without redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the workflow context, the v2 alternative, the caller-approval requirement, and the non-goals (no private key, no signing, no submission). The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the response contains or how to detect success, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the event_signer_public is caller-generated and ephemeral, and by reinforcing that the private key must never be sent. It also clarifies the access_token is legacy v1 wallet-bound and not a v2 capability. This goes beyond the schema's field 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 states a specific verb ('prepare'), a specific resource ('unsigned CCTP burn'), and the exact context ('current legacy v1 session using a caller-owned event signer public key'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from v2 sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart from assetfare_v2_prepare and assetfare_v2_session_create without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use only when the legacy workflow reports this as the next action' and explicitly names alternatives for v2 routes. It also states what the tool does not do (never receives the private key, signs, or submits), which helps an agent avoid misuse.

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