ramzinex_edit_general_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It warns that the tool changes 'security-sensitive access settings' and provides the HTTP mapping. It also describes the error response for disabled account control. However, it does not mention whether the change is reversible, immediate, or has side effects beyond the warning. Moderate transparency.

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 roughly 6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a warning. It follows a logical order: purpose, prerequisite, HTTP mapping, argument details. Every sentence adds value, though the Persian translation is slightly redundant. It could be slightly trimmed but is well-structured.

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 security-sensitive mutation tool with no annotations and an existing output schema (not described), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, parameter meanings, and endpoint. It does not explain the return value (acceptable since output schema exists) or immediate effects of changes. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 compensate fully. Each parameter is explained clearly: address_free (0/1, controls withdrawals to non-whitelisted addresses), alert (0/1, enables access-change alerts), and instance (default when omitted). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 updates 'account-wide API-key general access', using a specific verb and resource. The warning 'account control' and Persian purpose further clarify the scope. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the similar 'ramzinex_edit_private_access' in the sibling list, and the description's focus on 'general access' implies a counterpart for private access.

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?

Explicit prerequisites are given: requires configured credentials, account_control=true, and read_only=false. It describes the error returned if account_control is disabled, helping the agent decide when to use. However, it does not directly compare to ramzinex_edit_private_access, though the naming implies a distinction.

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