record_stream_tick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Record') and specifies it's for 'MICRO_TRANSFER streams' (not Superfluid), which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after recording (e.g., confirmation).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical constraints. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the specific use case (MICRO_TRANSFER streams) but doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or side effects, which would be helpful given the mutation nature.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying 'tx_hash' is for 'the current pending tick', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Record a micro-transfer stream payment') and resource ('micro-transfer stream'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_stream' or 'pause_stream'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'mark_job_paid' which might be related to payment recording.

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 on when to use this tool ('Only for MICRO_TRANSFER streams' and 'Submit the transaction hash for the current pending tick'), but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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