set_low_balance_alert

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 states that the tool sets a threshold and triggers email alerts, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overriding previous threshold), permission requirements, or error handling for invalid input. This is insufficient for a 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 is extremely concise: two sentences with no irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the tool's function and consequence.

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 tool's simplicity (setting a threshold) and the lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits details about valid threshold ranges, success/failure responses, and whether the setting persists or is temporary. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a production tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that the threshold is in wei and for a KMS signer. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not introduce new semantic meaning.

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 specifies the action 'Set the low-balance threshold' and the resource 'KMS signer', with the consequence of email alerts firing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_balance' or 'set_auto_recharge' by its unique 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., signer must exist) or conditions under which it should not be used. The agent is left without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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