coronium_topup_pool_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'adds traffic/credit' but does not mention side effects like deducting from account balance, whether the operation is reversible, or if any prerequisites apply beyond having an existing pool key. This leaves significant uncertainty for an AI agent.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the object, and a clarification in parentheses, all in a compact and front-loaded manner.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete about the core action. However, the lack of annotations means the description should also explain expected side effects (e.g., balance deduction) or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 describes the parameter 'id' as 'Pool key id' with 100% coverage, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds the nuance that the id must refer to an 'existing' pool key, which is a minor improvement over the schema alone. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'top up' with a clear resource 'pool key' and clarifies the action with 'add traffic/credit'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like buying a new pool, listing pool keys, or canceling a pool key.

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 states this is for an 'existing pool key', which gives clear context for when to use it (adding credit to an already-existing key) versus purchasing a new pool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios, but the 'existing' qualifier provides some guidance.

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