stellar_contract_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a stateful mutation operation (for add/remove), nor does it explain the implications of the overwrite parameter, potential side effects, or return format. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details, so it is not maximally effective.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not name the supported actions, explain the action-driven behavior, clarify required parameters, or describe how aliases persist or interact with networks, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Manage contract aliases') and specifies the benefit ('for easier reference'), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it fails to differentiate this tool from its many siblings in the Stellar family and does not reveal that the tool is actually a multi-action dispatcher supporting add, remove, show, and list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is unclear when an agent should create an alias, and no prerequisites (such as a contract being deployed) or relationships to sibling tools like stellar_contract_deploy are mentioned.

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