q402_recurring_skip_next

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the next fire is skipped, cadence is preserved, active status is required, and authentication requires a paid Multichain API key. It does not mention return values or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are covered well.

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 verbose but front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes meaningful context: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, authentication, and a prerequisite call. No fluff, but could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main action, usage cases, prerequisites, and parameter sourcing. It lacks explicit mention of return format or edge cases (e.g., what if the rule is already skipped), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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 provides full coverage of the two parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that ruleId should be confirmed via q402_recurring_list, giving context on how to obtain a valid value. It also implicitly describes walletId's default behavior via the schema description. This extra guidance justifies one point 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Skip ONLY the next scheduled fire of a recurring-payment rule' and specifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pause/cancel by emphasizing that cadence is preserved. The examples further clarify the intended use.

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 scenarios with user phrasing examples, states the prerequisite that the rule must be active (with a when-not for paused/cancelled rules), and instructs to call q402_recurring_list first. This gives the agent clear usage context and alternatives implicitly.

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