set_recovery_address

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

The description discloses that the tool mutates state (set/clear) and describes the purpose. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not elaborate on edge cases or side effects beyond the basic operation.

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 19 words, efficient and well-structured. It front-loads the key action and context.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose for a simple setter operation. It could mention that it applies specifically to KMS contract wallets, but that is already in the tool name. No output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 adds context about the recovery_address parameter being nullable and its use in auto-drain, but this largely reiterates the schema's own description.

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 (set or clear), the resource (recovery address), and the context (auto-drain on day-90 deletion). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like drain_contract_wallet and delete_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set a recovery address for auto-drain). However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios where this tool should not be used or suggest alternatives.

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