stellar_contract_asset_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Deploy' (a mutation) but gives no details about submission, fee requirements, account prerequisites, irreversibility, or the effect of the build_only parameter. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavioral gaps that a longer description could address.

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 of deploying a Stellar Asset Contract, the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain key behavioral aspects such as transaction submission, required account state, or return values—context an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, making the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb (Deploy) and a specific resource (Stellar Asset Contract for wrapping classic assets). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling stellar_contract_deploy, which deploys contracts without the asset-wrapping focus.

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 phrase 'for wrapping classic assets' implies the use case—when you need to wrap a classic asset into a contract. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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