move_publish_unsigned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key safety trait ('does not execute'), but it does not describe what 'create' means in terms of side effects (e.g., returns a transaction object, writes to disk), nor does it mention any prerequisites. It adds some value but lacks deeper behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Build and create an unsigned publish transaction (safe — does not execute)'. Every word earns its place, and the safety qualifier is essential and succinct. No 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?

The description conveys the core purpose and safety property, but it does not explain the return value or how this tool fits into the transaction workflow (e.g., subsequent signing). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap, though the tool is simple and inputs are fully described.

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 100%: both 'path' and 'gas_budget' have descriptive comments in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Build and create an unsigned publish transaction', and explicitly notes 'does not execute', which distinguishes it from execution tools like iota_wallet_sign_execute. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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 provides clear context that this tool creates an unsigned transaction and is 'safe' because it does not execute. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'does not execute' implies it should be used before signing/execution steps. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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