Recover

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and "safe to run any time" is consistent with that, adding confirmation context. However, the description never explains what happens to burners with zero funds, whether gas is required on each chain, whether partial failures are possible, or what the call reports back — meaningful gaps for a funds-moving operation with openWorldHint=true.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and destination first, then the safety note. The trailing parenthetical "(or to)" is slightly awkward, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and destination adequately. It remains thin on return behavior, gas handling, and the meaning of "registered burner," which an agent would need to use it confidently across the five supported chains.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the `chain` enum is documented in the schema while `to` has only a regex pattern. The description's "(or to)" does add real meaning by framing `to` as an alternate sweep destination, but it does not say whether that address must be registered or whether the override applies across all chains.

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?

"Sweep every registered burner that still holds funds back to the agent wallet (or to)" names a specific verb (sweep) and resource (burner-held funds) plus the destination, which separates it from siblings like blackpool_send or blackpool_deposit. The only gap is the undefined term "registered burner," which an agent may not be able to resolve without external knowledge.

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?

"Safe to run any time" gives a rough usage signal but no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use, and it never points to an alternative such as blackpool_balance for checking holdings or blackpool_send for targeted transfers. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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