workers_topup_link

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it clarifies that the link does not credit group tt, explains the effect of amount_usd on the start payload, and warns about invalid dots. This goes beyond basic purpose and provides useful operational details.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists ('Does not credit group tt. No tt_credit.' could be combined). Overall, every sentence adds value, though the structure is logical.

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 URL-generation tool with two parameters and an unspecified output schema, the description covers the core behavior and one parameter well. However, it neglects the group_id parameter and does not describe the output schema or potential errors, leaving gaps for a fully informed agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains amount_usd (omission vs. presence, start payload values). However, it completely omits group_id, which is an optional parameter with a default empty string. The description does not clarify what group_id does or when to provide it.

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 generates a URL to top up the ACCOUNT wallet, specifying the bot and balance type. It distinguishes itself by clarifying what it does not do ('Does not credit group tt. No tt_credit.'), which helps differentiate from related tools like workers_balance.

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 conditional behavior based on the amount_usd parameter (ask_amount vs. start=addBalance_10), which guides usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workers_balance or workers_salary_quote, and does not mention any prerequisites 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.