prepare_morpho_supply_collateral

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true (state mutation) and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds that it includes an 'approve step if needed', which is a key behavioral detail not in annotations. It could detail more (e.g., what gets destroyed), but the annotation safety profile is already clear.

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 two sentences: first states the core action, second adds the critical 'approve step' detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 transaction-building tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and a key behavior (approve step). However, it does not clarify the difference between 'supplyCollateral' and 'supply' (which may supply loan assets), which could cause confusion given many similar sibling tools. Still, the name and description together are adequate for an agent familiar with Morpho Blue.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters well with human-readable descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond naming the action; it mentions 'human-readable decimal amount' and 'approve step' but these are already covered in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an unsigned Morpho Blue supplyCollateral transaction that adds collateral to a market. It uses specific verbs ('build', 'adds') and identifies the resource ('Morpho Blue supplyCollateral transaction'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like prepare_morpho_supply (which likely supplies loan tokens).

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 implies usage for collateral supply on Morpho Blue but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like prepare_morpho_supply. There is no guidance on prerequisites or fallback tools. The usage context is implied by the tool name and description but lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative recommendations.

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