editEarnAutoSavings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot carry: required Earn write permission, a 5 req/s per-UID rate limit, and the fact that purchaseImmediately triggers an asynchronous subscription of the available Funding Account balance rather than a synchronous side effect.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero filler, with the global-vs-per-coin scope front-loaded before the subtler purchaseImmediately and permission/rate-limit details. Every sentence conveys operational 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?

For a destructive, hard-to-reverse mutation with no output schema, the definition covers permissions, rate limits, and async side effects well. It stops short of explaining how a global setting interacts with existing per-coin settings, or whether disabling cancels an already-triggered subscription.

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 only 25% (only `confirm` is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain `coin`'s omission semantics and the full behavior of `purchaseImmediately`, including that it is ignored when disabling; `isSelected` is only implicitly covered by the enable/disable framing.

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 pair (enable/disable) plus the precise resource (Flexible Saving auto savings) and its scope (one coin or all supported coins). This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling listEarnAutoSavings without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives concrete selection conditions: omit `coin` to change the global setting, and `purchaseImmediately` is ignored when disabling. It does not explicitly name listEarnAutoSavings as the read-only alternative for inspection, so routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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