assetfare_prepare_source_action

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it 'makes a network request and advances preparation state, but never signs or submits,' which clarifies the side-effect profile and the non-submission guarantee. This adds value beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover error behavior or return details.

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 with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage constraints and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, alternatives, side effects, and what it does not do (sign/submit). The only gap is that it does not describe the return value or output format, which is notable since there is no output schema. Still, for a state-advancing step in a flow, the description is largely sufficient.

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% and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a 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 states a specific verb ('Prepare') and a specific resource ('bounded unsigned Solana source action'), and scopes it to the legacy v1 session step. It clearly distinguishes itself from v2 siblings by naming them, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other 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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('after assetfare_create_session and explicit caller approval') and when not to use it ('for a v2 route use assetfare_v2_prepare or assetfare_v2_session_create instead'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance expected.

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