stellar_soroban_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool simulates, extracts a footprint, and may submit depending on policy, which is meaningful. However, 'policy allows' is vague, and there is no mention of what happens if policy denies, side effects on network state, or whether any signing or fee handling is performed.

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 a single focused sentence that wastes no words. The core action (invoke) is front-loaded, and the simulation-to-submission pipeline is conveyed efficiently.

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?

This is a complex blockchain-mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the high-level flow but omits critical details: expected return value, failure modes, policy conditions, fee/signature requirements, and whether the call has on-chain effects. An agent cannot confidently predict the outcome from this description alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and although args have an enum in the schema, the description does not clarify how args map to contract invocation or how sourceAccount is used beyond simulation.

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 verb ('Invoke') and resource ('Soroban smart contract'), and describes the multi-step process of simulation, footprint extraction, and submission. It is specific enough to be distinguished from payment and account tools, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling stellar_soroban_simulate.

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 implies this is for invoking a contract and submitting to the network, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over stellar_soroban_simulate. No guidance is given about prerequisites like funding, signatures, or policy conditions, so an agent must infer the intended use case.

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