wrap_name

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 discloses that wrapping converts token standards, returns a two-step transaction recipe, notes that all fuses are irreversible, and specifies ordering constraints. It does not detail exact failure modes or gas costs, but it covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, bullet points for benefits and fuses, and a critical note. It is longer than some, but each section earns its place. The information is front-loaded with the purpose, and the fuse list is necessary for correct usage.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (two-step recipe), the transformation, and the constraints. It covers prerequisites (name must be unwrapped, owner must hold the token) via schema and description. It could mention what happens if the name is already wrapped or if invalid fuses are provided, but overall it is quite complete for the complexity.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It enumerates all valid fuse values (which the schema does not provide as an enum) and explains the effect of each fuse, plus the mandatory ordering rule. This is valuable semantic information that helps the agent select and validate parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Wrap an unwrapped .eth name into the ENS NameWrapper contract." It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like unwrap_name (which reverses this process). The details about ERC-721 to ERC-1155 conversion further clarify the exact purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to enable fuses, protected subnames, or ERC-1155 compatibility. It also includes the important usage constraint that CANNOT_UNWRAP must be burned before other fuses. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g., "use unwrap_name to reverse").

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