cpu_transfer_syndicate_manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the action is IRREVERSIBLE, the tax stream transfers immediately, the only way to get it back is if the new manager transfers it back, and it lists clear failure conditions (not current manager, zero address, registry not deployed). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 slightly long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, irreversibility warning, caution to double-check address, on-chain nature, and failure conditions. It is well-structured with the main action first, followed by critical caveats. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 an irreversible, high-stakes on-chain action with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when it fails, consequences, and safety advice. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the impact and preconditions without needing to inspect sibling tools.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (id and next) with 100% coverage. The description adds the consequence that the successor becomes the tax recipient, but the schema already states 'becomes the new manager and tax recipient.' Thus the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action: 'Hand the manager role of a syndicate you manage to a successor wallet.' It uses a precise verb ('hand') and resource ('manager role'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like cpu_set_syndicate_params by noting the irreversible transfer of manager role and tax stream.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to transfer management to a successor. It also implies you must be current manager by stating failure conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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