azeth_whitelist_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details that only the owner can update, the requirement for guardian co-signature, the auto-signing for self-guardian accounts, and the specific error (GUARDIAN_COSIGN_REQUIRED) for distinct guardians. It also explains the impact on executor modules and returns a transaction hash. This is comprehensive.

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 clear sections (Use this when, Why it matters, Returns, Note, Example). It is moderately long but each sentence adds value without redundancy. Slight verbosity in the 'Why it matters' section could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with guardian and whitelist logic), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral nuances, return value, and provides an example. It adequately prepares an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description's example and note about using the zero address for native ETH add marginal value beyond the schema. It does not explain chain aliases or smart account defaults beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 action: 'Add or remove a token from your smart account's guardian whitelist.' It specifies the resource (guardian whitelist) and the context (payment agreements or executor-module operations). While there is a sibling tool 'azeth_whitelist_protocol', the description's specificity and depth effectively distinguish its purpose from general whitelist operations.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when: You need to whitelist a new token for payment agreements or other executor-module operations.' It also notes default whitelisted tokens (ETH, USDC, WETH). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, lacking full comparative guidance.

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