set_recovery_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the recovery address, but lacks additional behavioral details such as idempotency, side effects, or permissions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the core action and no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context by explaining the purpose and the auto-drain mechanism. Missing details like return value are acceptable given no output schema.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The recovery_address description in the schema already mentions auto-drain on deletion, so the tool description merely rephrases it.

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 (set/clear) and resource (recovery address for KMS contract wallet), and the context of auto-drain on day-90 deletion distinguishes it from sibling tools like provision_contract_wallet or drain_contract_wallet.

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 usage for setting up auto-drain, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. It is minimal but not misleading.

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