set_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that payment details may be returned if x402 payment is needed, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., mutation, authorization requirements, or rate limits). The behavioral disclosure is partially adequate but not comprehensive.

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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds key behavioral context. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains auto-detection and possible payment return. However, it lacks details on success behavior or error scenarios, leaving minor gaps for a fully self-contained definition.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the tier parameter. The tool description adds context by explaining auto-detection based on wallet state, which enriches the schema's static enum values. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (subscribe, renew, upgrade) and the resource (tier). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tier_checkout and tier_status by emphasizing auto-detection of the action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tier_checkout for manual checkout). The auto-detection behavior is implied but not elaborated, leaving the agent without clear when-not or alternative recommendations.

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