setBatchCollateralSwitch

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description confirms the enable/disable effect. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining error codes 182012 (regional regulatory restriction, not a parameter problem) and 182011 (platform collateral limit) with concrete agent actions. It stops short of describing response or partial-failure behavior, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 core description is one front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope. The embedded agent hint is longer but each sentence carries actionable error-handling information. The structure is compact and scannable.

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 description gives the core purpose and important error-mode behavior, which covers the most failure-prone part of calling this batch tool. However, with no output schema it does not describe the response format, partial-success semantics, or whether the batch is atomic. These are notable gaps for a write operation of this type, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate, but it adds only the high-level 'enable or disable multiple coins' mapping. The schema itself already defines request as an array with required coin and collateralSwitch ON/OFF, so the parameters are self-explanatory. The description does not clarify request batching shape or any per-item constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Batch enable or disable multiple coins as collateral.' The word 'batch' distinguishes it from the single-coin sibling setCollateralSwitch, so an agent can tell them apart. No filler or vagueness.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over setCollateralSwitch or other tools; the 'batch' wording only implies using it for multiple coins. The error-handling hint gives post-failure guidance (do not retry 182012, suggest alternatives for 182011) but does not address tool selection. This is implied usage at best.

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