assetfare_prepare_destination_action

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds that it 'makes a network request and advances preparation state, but never signs or submits.' This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying side effects and what it does not do, which is valuable for an agent deciding to call it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the usage constraint. Every clause earns its place with no fluff. The key differentiator (v2 vs v1) is placed prominently in the second sentence.

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 complexity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (network request, state advance, no signing) and the precondition. It does not describe return values, but the mutation nature makes that less critical. Minor gap: 'exact-cap permit' is domain jargon but likely understood in context.

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 descriptions for each parameter, including constraints like UUID format and min/max lengths. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Prepare' and the specific resources: 'exact-cap permit and unsigned ERC-4337 destination settlement plan' for the 'legacy v1 session'. It distinguishes from v2 by explicitly referencing assetfare_v2_session_get, making it unambiguous which workflow it applies to.

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?

It explicitly states the condition 'when the legacy workflow reports the destination step and after caller approval' and contrasts with v2 sessions, telling the agent when not to use it and pointing to the alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about invocation context.

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