q402_recurring_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: discloses subscription requirements per chain, trial-key rejection error (MULTICHAIN_REQUIRED), server-side caps (perTxMax, dailyLimit) and how they interact with the daily bucket, local rails (Q402_MAX_AMOUNT_PER_CALL, Q402_ALLOWED_RECIPIENTS), and the API key auth model. This is far more transparent than typical.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core action (author a recurring rule) and then systematically covers alternatives, requirements, limits, and cancellation. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (9 params, mutation, no output schema), the description covers purpose, alternatives, error conditions, scheduling behavior, server-side limits, and local policy enforcement. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it safely without needing additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by illustrating cadence syntax, emphasizing the confirm:true requirement with explicit user consent, and explaining the paid-subscription rule for every chain. These examples and constraints clarify intent beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Author a new recurring-payment rule on the user's Agent Wallet.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (q402_recurring_cancel, q402_recurring_list, etc.) by defining the create action and noting single-recipient scope versus the dashboard for multi-recipient payroll.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'use the dashboard for multi-recipient payroll' and 'trial keys ... should keep using q402_pay for one-shot Trial sends.' It also points to q402_recurring_cancel for stopping rules, giving clear context and exclusions.

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