Renew network public address

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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses scope requirements (networking:manage), 2FA locks, ownership enforcement, that acceptance is pending not connectivity, how to interpret in_progress/reason_code/reason_kind/next_check_seconds, and transport-uncertainty handling. This is essentially a full operational runbook.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but it is a single dense paragraph mixing permissions, workflow, polling semantics, error interpretation, and retry policy, with repetition ('preserve the exact quote'/'Preserve reason_code', 'never automatically retry'/'never generate a new key'). Information-dense but unstructured and longer than needed.

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?

For a 5-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers everything an agent needs: required scopes, prerequisites, idempotency, approval gate, and how to interpret the returned operation's in_progress/reason_code fields. Nothing material is left to the schema or inference.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: acknowledge_charge only after the user approves the exact quoted EUR gross_amount, the quoteToken must be the original issue, and the idempotencyKey must be reused unchanged on recovery. It links params to the approval workflow rather than restating types.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Pay the approved address renewal from balance with its exact quote ID/token and original key.' It is clearly a paid renewal of a public address, distinct from quote_public_address_renewal or disable_public_address_auto_renew, though it stops short of explicitly naming the sibling quote tool it depends on.

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?

Gives strong preconditions and sequencing – 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first', obtain approval, choose a supported catalog tier, preserve the quote, disclose gross_amount before approval. It never names the alternative tools (quote_public_address_renewal, order/disable auto-renew) to route the agent explicitly, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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