set_recovery_address

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states the effect (set or clear address, used for auto-drain on day-90 deletion) and that the address is optional. It does not contradict any annotations. Some additional detail on side effects could further raise the score.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys the essential action and context without unnecessary words or repetition. Well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with only three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the purpose and use case. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

All three parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic information beyond restating the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 or clear) and the resource (recovery address for a KMS signer) and provides the specific context (auto-drain on day-90 deletion). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like drain_signer.

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 when managing recovery addresses but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like drain_signer. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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