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 burden. It thoroughly discloses: requires a UserOperation (gas), only account owner can modify, requires guardian co-signature, explains self-guardian vs distinct guardian behavior, and mentions the return value (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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, a dedicated 'Use this when' section, a note about requirements, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately sized 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?

Given full schema coverage and the comprehensive description covering behavioral aspects (permissions, co-signature, gas requirements) and an example, the description is complete. There is no output schema, but the return value is mentioned.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by providing an example, clarifying that the protocol field must be a valid Ethereum address, and noting default behaviors for chain and smartAccount. This enhances understanding.

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 'Add or remove a protocol (contract address) from your smart account's guardian whitelist.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'azeth_whitelist_token' which deals with tokens.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when: You need to interact with a new DeFi protocol or contract through executor modules (like PaymentAgreementModule). Protocols must be whitelisted for automated operations to succeed.' This provides clear context and when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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