prepare_kamino_borrow

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: preconditions, LTV gate, simulation gate, durable nonce requirement, and blind-sign treatment. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three to four sentences, all value-add. Front-loaded purpose, followed by preconditions, on-chain behavior, and additional requirements. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Covers purpose, preconditions, on-chain enforcement, simulation, and additional requirements (durable nonce, blind-sign). Missing explicit mention of return value, but as a preparation tool without output schema, the description is adequately complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining wallet must have userMetadata/obligation, mint must be on market, and amount is human-readable with decimals resolved.

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 builds a Kamino borrow transaction, pulling liquidity as debt against existing collateral. It differentiates from sibling Kamino tools by specifying prerequisites (init_user, mint on market) and behavioral details like LTV gate and simulation.

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 clear preconditions (wallet must have run prepare_kamino_init_user and mint must be on main market), implicitly guiding when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with other borrowing tools or scenarios, but the context is sufficient for a protocol-specific tool.

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