start_credit_ladder

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it marks the tool as a write, discloses the conditional grant, names the exact failure code (no_qualifying_attestation) and that counts are returned, and warns of a permanent consequence — one default resets the limit to $0 and the ladder cannot be reopened. It still omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency (what happens if called when a ladder is already open).

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker and the action, then condition and consequence in priority order; no filler sentences. The mid-sentence line break and the dense final clause about default/reset cost a bit of readability but nothing 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 one-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key decision inputs: eligibility condition, failure mode and its payload, recovery route, and irreversibility. Remaining gaps — success response shape and permission requirements — are relatively minor for this complexity.

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 sole parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the wallet is the subject against which attestations are counted, which adds some meaning, but never specifies the expected format (address vs. agent ID) or whose wallet may be used.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Open the ladder and request the $10 starter limit") and prefixes it with [WRITE], which cleanly separates it from read-side siblings like get_credit_ladder and from record_credit_ladder_repayment. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (a qualifying allowlisted attestation must be counted against the wallet) and a concrete recovery path when unmet — earn attested work first at /api/agentworld/slrb/attest/work. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g. get_credit_ladder to check state, record_credit_ladder_repayment for servicing), which keeps it 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.