Set debt ceilings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. 'Admin:' implies elevated permissions, and 'set' suggests a mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether changes are irreversible, require multi-signature, have rate limits, or affect system stability. For an admin tool with potential high impact, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence ('Admin: set global/per-asset debt ceilings.') that wastes no words. Every part earns its place by conveying action, scope, and context efficiently, making it easy to parse despite its brevity.

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's complexity (admin mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context such as parameter semantics, behavioral risks, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'global/per-asset' but doesn't explain how 'assetUnits' and 'usdValue' parameters relate to this distinction (e.g., which is for global vs. per-asset, expected formats like token symbols or numeric strings). Without this, the agent cannot infer parameter meanings beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('set') and resource ('global/per-asset debt ceilings'), with 'Admin:' indicating administrative context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'strato.lending.borrow' or 'strato.lending.repay' by focusing on configuration rather than user transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other admin tools like 'strato.lending.configure-asset' or 'strato.lending.pause', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Admin:' hinting at administrative privileges, but it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison is made to sibling tools (e.g., 'strato.lending.configure-asset' for asset-specific settings), leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear boundaries or exclusions.

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