Post Instances Customers Wallets Yield Enable

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds the key consequence beyond that — idle balance is swept into the vault within the hour — which is real behavioral disclosure. It also clarifies the return payload shape. Missing is failure behavior (already-enabled, ineligible wallet).

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return-shape caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (wallet, not yield object) and the asynchronous sweep behavior. For a mutation it still omits permission/auth requirements and idempotency expectations despite an Idempotency-Key parameter existing.

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 50% (only customer_id and Idempotency-Key documented), and the description adds no parameter guidance for the two undocumented IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither compensates for nor worsens the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Turns yield on for the wallet' — which immediately separates it from the YieldDisable sibling. The follow-up sentence clarifies what the call returns, making the operation 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read yield_status from this response, and use 'Retrieve Wallet Yield' for positions. It gives a clear alternative for a specific need, though it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., wallet state required to enable) or what happens if yield is already on.

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