prepare_token_approve

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

Annotations already indicate `destructiveHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`. The description adds context about the burn-address gate, the `BURN_ADDRESS_UNLIMITED_APPROVAL` error, and the friendly label resolution. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that the output is an unsigned transaction needing submission.

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 fairly long (around 10 sentences) but every sentence provides unique value. It starts with the core purpose, then covers amount nuances, burn-address guard, friendly labels, EVM restriction, and usage alternatives. Though dense, it could be slightly more streamlined but remains well-structured.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers purpose, parameter details, validation, and usage guidance. It lacks explicit mention that the output is an unsigned transaction requiring `send_transaction`. With no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides comprehensive context for an agent.

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 83%, but the description adds critical semantics: `amount` clarifies decimal vs raw units and accepts 'max'; `spender` is described as typically a protocol contract; `token` warns against wrappers; `acknowledgeBurnApproval` explains its guard purpose; `wallet` requires pairing; `chain` has enum. This goes well beyond 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 it builds an unsigned ERC-20 approve transaction, explicitly contrasts with `prepare_revoke_approval`, and restricts to EVM chains. It distinguishes from protocol-specific prepare tools, making the purpose and scope precise.

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 explicitly advises preferring protocol-specific prepare tools (e.g., `prepare_aave_supply`) when approval is bundled, and reserves this tool for one-off allowance-setting. It also specifies EVM-only and explains when to use `acknowledgeBurnApproval`. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate usage.

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