deposit_savings

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning if it's a write operation, if approvals are needed, transaction costs, reversibility, or rate limits. The agent is left guessing.

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 short sentence, but it is too minimal. It lacks important details, making it under-informative rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity of a deposit/transaction tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'sUSDD' is, the deposit process, expected outcomes, or potential risks.

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 50% (only 'network' has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to 'amount' (just a string) beyond the schema. It does not specify format, limits, or semantics of the network parameter beyond what schema already 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 clearly states the action (Deposit), the resource (USDD into sUSDD), and includes a scope qualifier ('where supported'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'withdraw_savings' and 'deposit_and_mint'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mint_usdd', 'psm_swap_to_usdd', or 'deposit_and_mint'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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