Shield (deposit)

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to re-establish risk. It adds genuinely new behavioral facts: gas is paid from the agent wallet, execution takes 30-90 seconds, and a timeout is not evidence of failure, which directly addresses the non-idempotent hazard.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then timing and the retry warning. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, latency, and retry safety well, but never says what the call returns (transaction hash? receipt?) or whether it waits for confirmation. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict the result shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so amount, chain, and pool semantics (including the 'max' sentinel and per-chain pool options) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (shielding/depositing funds) with a clear source (agent wallet) and destination (private pool), which is distinct from siblings like blackpool_send or blackpool_swap. It never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly, but the verb+resource+scope combination is unambiguous.

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?

It gives operational guidance (expect 30-90 s, don't retry on timeout without checking blackpool_balance) but no guidance on when to choose deposit over blackpool_send or blackpool_bridges, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing a funded wallet.

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