stellar_tx_manage_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but says nothing about submitting a signed transaction to a live network, fee consumption, signature requirements, entry size limits, or the fact that pre-existing entries are overwritten. For a destructive network-mutating tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, and the three supported operations lead the sentence. It is very short but does not omit anything that would be expected at this size beyond what is already covered elsewhere.

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 six-parameter, network-mutating transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the build-vs-submit distinction, signing/fee implications, and the semantics of deleting via an omitted value. An agent is left to reconstruct operation behavior from the schema alone.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions data_name, data_value, network, or build_only), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb set (set, modify, delete) and a specific resource (account data entries), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings such as stellar_tx_payment or stellar_tx_change_trust. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent transaction-operation tools like stellar_tx_set_options, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., source_account must exist and be funded), and no reference to alternatives or to the build_only flow. The agent gets a purpose statement but must infer the triggering conditions entirely.

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