bags_prepare_token_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that this is a preparation step, does not launch the token, and does not send an on-chain transaction. It also discloses the $BOS requirement and the outputs. It could add what happens if $BOS is absent, but the current disclosure is solid.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the gating requirement, then states the purpose, outputs, and key non-behaviors. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does, what it returns, and that it has no on-chain side effects. The output is described, and the input schema covers the parameters. A complete picture is present, though it could mention prerequisites for obtaining or using $BOS or the fate of the reserved mint address.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description broadly refers to 'token info and metadata' but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create token info and metadata on Bags,' and explicitly identifies the return values (reserved mint address and metadata URL). It also distinguishes the tool from a token launch by clarifying that it only prepares a launch, which separates it from related launch-flow tools.

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 implies when to use this tool: before launching a token, to prepare metadata. It also gives an explicit exclusion: it does not launch the token and sends no on-chain transaction. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool or provide a direct comparison, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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