azeth_whitelist_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds comprehensively. It discloses: gas requirements ('requires a UserOperation'), authorization constraints ('Only the account owner can modify'), security model ('require guardian co-signature'), side effects ('allows executor modules to interact with it'), and return values ('Confirmation...with transaction hash').

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?

Appropriately structured with clear semantic sections (action, usage context, parameter constraints, returns, notes, example). Every sentence delivers unique information without repetition. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 smart account operations and absence of annotations/output schema, the description provides complete operational context. It covers security implications (guardian co-signature), cost model (UserOperation/gas), authorization (owner-only), and return format (transaction hash), which is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the protocol field must be a 'valid Ethereum address' and provides a concrete JSON example showing the expected format. However, it could have elaborated on the 'chain' parameter aliases or 'smartAccount' naming conventions beyond what the schema lists.

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 opens with a precise action statement: 'Add or remove a protocol (contract address) from your smart account's guardian whitelist.' It uses specific verbs (add/remove) and identifies the exact resource (protocol/contract address vs sibling tool azeth_whitelist_token which handles tokens), clearly distinguishing scope from the 25+ sibling tools available.

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 'Use this when:' followed by the specific scenario (interacting with new DeFi protocols through executor modules). It further clarifies the prerequisite constraint that 'Protocols must be whitelisted for automated operations to succeed,' providing clear context for when this tool is necessary versus alternative approaches.

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