create_mandate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the cumulative cap is enforced globally across chains, the payee allowlist is optional, and a mandateId is returned for subsequent `pay` calls. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but given the absence of annotations, it provides solid context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific constraints. It efficiently covers behavior, return value, and typical usage without any filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the rich input schema and lack of output schema, the description provides essential context: the tool is a one-time setup by the human principal, returns a mandateId, and imposes global constraints. It does not exhaustively cover error conditions or when the mandate becomes active, but it is sufficient for agent invocation and integration with sibling tools.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, though it does emphasize the global nature of the cumulative cap and clarifies that the output is a mandateId. This is consistent with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 tool provisions a spend mandate with specific constraints (per-transaction cap, global cumulative cap, optional payee allowlist). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the returned mandateId that is passed to `pay`, making its role in the tool family 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?

The description explains that this is normally set up once by the human principal before the agent is given spending ability, implying it is a prerequisite for `pay`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (mandate_status, pay, revoke_mandate) make the usage context clear.

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