setBatchCollateralSwitch

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description merely restates the mutation. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as partial-failure behavior, idempotency, or whether the entire request must succeed atomically.

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?

One short, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the batch nature and the core purpose without wasting tokens.

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?

The schema is self-explanatory for the single request parameter, and the annotations cover the basic mutating nature. However, for a batch operation with no output schema, the description does not explain expected behavior on partial failures, result format, or any limits, leaving an agent to infer important execution details.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only adds the natural-language mapping of 'enable/disable' to the collateralSwitch ON/OFF values. The schema already documents the request array structure, coin field, and collateralSwitch enum, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 clearly states the action ('batch enable or disable') and resource ('multiple coins as collateral'), so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling setCollateralSwitch, which is the single-coin counterpart.

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?

The word 'batch' implies this should be used when multiple coins need their collateral status changed at once, and a sibling setCollateralSwitch exists for single-coin operations. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over that sibling or mentions any constraints such as maximum batch size.

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