deposit_jst_for_votes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, consistent with the description's 'Deposit' mutation. The description adds behavioral context: it requires prior approval, describes the voting power rate (1 JST = 1 Vote), and mentions reversibility (withdrawable). This goes beyond annotations by specifying the prerequisite and outcome.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, and key details (rate and reversibility). No redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.

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 the core functionality, prerequisites, and outcome. It lacks details on error behaviors (e.g., insufficient balance) or return values, but given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the content is largely complete. Missing minor context prevents a 5.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('amount' and 'network') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any further parameter details beyond what the schema gives, so baseline 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: 'Deposit JST into the WJST contract to get voting power.' It identifies the specific resource (WJST contract) and the purpose (voting power), distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_jst_for_voting or withdraw_votes_to_jst.

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 instructs to use approve_jst_for_voting first as a prerequisite, guiding when to call this tool. It also notes that deposited JST can be withdrawn later, providing context on the lifecycle. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if insufficient allowance).

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