heliusWrite

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is mutating (write) but provides no details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects beyond basic mutation. This is insufficient for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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 consists of one succinct sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and resource. It is concise and waste-free, though it could include a bit more detail without harming brevity.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the distinct actions, parameter dependencies (e.g., destination for transfers, stakeAccount for staking), or response format. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without examining the schema extensively.

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 23%, requiring the description to compensate. It does not explain any parameter beyond the implicit hint of 'transfer' and 'staking'. Required parameters like action, _feedback, _feedbackTool, and _model are not described, and optional parameters like destination, amount, etc., are unmentioned. The description adds minimal semantic value over the schema.

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 identifies the tool as performing mutating SOL/token transfer and staking actions. It uses specific verbs ('mutating', 'sends', 'staking') and explicitly distinguishes it from read-only queries, differentiating it from siblings like heliusChain or heliusAsset.

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?

Explicitly states to use for 'sends or staking' and not for 'read-only queries', providing clear context on when to use the tool. While it doesn't list alternative tools by name, the sibling tool names imply read-heavy operations, so the guidance is sufficient.

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