cpu_set_syndicate_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation REPLACES the entire card, that omitted fields revert to defaults, that it writes on-chain (a wallet transaction), that manager and creation time are untouched, and lists all key failure conditions. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the critical warning ('This REPLACES the entire card at once'), then gives the safe workflow, then lists constraints and failure modes. While long, the structure is logical and no information is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, constraints, and error conditions comprehensively. It even suggests the verification step (read with cpu_get_syndicate FIRST). The only minor omission is the exact return value on success, but that is not critical given the detailed behavioral context.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that omitted fields revert to defaults and that rates are converted to basis points on-chain. It also reinforces that id comes from cpu_get_syndicate, which is useful context. This pushes it above baseline.

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 opens with 'Update a syndicate you manage,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cpu_create_syndicate, cpu_transfer_syndicate_manager, and cpu_get_syndicate by emphasizing that it replaces the entire card rather than performing a partial patch.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read the current card with cpu_get_syndicate FIRST and resubmit the full state with your edits applied.' It also warns against using it when not the manager ('Fails clearly if you are not the manager') and explains the danger of partial updates. This is clear and actionable.

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