bags_claim_fees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it flags the operation as a gated write, requires $BOS, discloses the two-step confirmation flow, and states the return value (confirmed on-chain signatures). It could add more about failure modes, confirmation-token expiry, or reversibility, but the most decision-relevant behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'GATED WRITE' immediately signals the critical nature, followed by purpose, requirement, workflow, and return value. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 two-step write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, auth requirement, and result. It is slightly incomplete around failure/edge-case behavior and does not point to the read-only sibling for checking claimable fees first, but an agent can correctly invoke the first and second calls based on this description.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both tokenMints and confirm. The description reinforces the preview/confirm workflow and the 'omit on first call' behavior, but it does not add meaningfully beyond what the schema already provides. 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 names a specific verb ('Claim'), a precise resource ('pending creator/LP fees'), and the target ('given token mints'). It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling bags_get_claimable_fees and the trading tool bags_execute_trade, so an agent can understand its purpose without opening schemas.

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 clearly explains the required gating condition ($BOS) and the mandatory two-step workflow: preview first, then confirm. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as bags_get_claimable_fees for checking pending fees first, so it misses the full 'when vs alternatives' guidance.

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