Private swap

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses privacy, same-chain scope, re-shielded output, and recovery behavior on partial failure. It does not mention fees, rate behavior, or approval requirements, but it adds meaningful operational context for a destructive swap.

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 two short sentences, front-loads what the tool does, and immediately follows with the recovery path. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 four-parameter swap with no output schema, it covers the core operation, privacy behavior, same-chain constraint, and failure recovery. Minor gaps remain around slippage behavior and fee/rate expectations, but the essential invoke-and-recover guidance is present.

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 75%, so the schema already documents from, chain, and amount. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and slippage_bps remains unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 verb and resource: a private same-chain swap between the native pool and stablecoin pool, with re-shielded output. It clearly distinguishes same-chain swaps from bridge-related siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with send or deposit.

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 a useful recovery instruction: if the swap stops halfway, run blackpool_recover. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this swap versus blackpool_bridge, blackpool_send, or blackpool_deposit beyond the same-chain constraint.

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