simulate_position_change

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: returns projected health factor and totals, supports three protocols with parameter details, and explicitly states no transaction is sent. No contradictions.

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 very concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, return values, protocol support, and key constraint. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values (health factor and totals). It covers protocol variants and states it's a simulation. However, it does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid actions). Still, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the action parameter (add/remove collateral, borrow/repay) and provides protocol-specific guidance for compound-v3 and morpho-blue (market and marketId). While not every parameter is detailed, the most complex ones are covered, adding value beyond 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 simulates adding/removing collateral or borrowing/repaying debt on a lending position, returning projected health factor and totals. It explicitly says no transaction is sent, distinguishing it from sibling prepare_ tools. The verb+resource is specific.

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 indicates when to use the tool (simulate lending position changes) and notes it supports multiple protocols with specific parameter requirements. It implicitly distinguishes from prepare_ tools by stating no transaction is sent, but does not explicitly provide alternatives or when not to use.

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