prepare_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'unsigned admin transaction' implying a signing step, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or required permissions beyond being an admin.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only moderate parameter coverage, the description lacks sufficient detail on return values, error states, or prerequisites beyond 'after publishing the Move package'. The tool's complexity (7 parameters, admin transaction) demands more contextual information.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only gives high-level context. Some parameters like feeMist and lpRecipient lack descriptions in both schema and description, but overall the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool prepares an unsigned admin transaction to create the shared mint config after publishing the Move package. The verb 'prepare' and resource 'unsigned admin transaction' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_mint or prepare_sponsored_mint.

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?

Description implies usage context ('after publishing the Move package') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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