stellar_tx_update_sequence

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 only that a sequence number is updated, without disclosing what happens to the transaction (in-place mutation vs returned new XDR), whether the tx must be unsigned, or what 'next' triggers against source_account.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than true conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the mutation result and the 'next'/source_account interaction. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 each of the four parameters (tx_xdr, network, source_account, sequence_number) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('the sequence number on a transaction'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as stellar_tx_sign or stellar_tx_send, which also operate on transactions.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus stellar_tx_sign, stellar_tx_send, or stellar_tx_decode, nor any prerequisite or ordering guidance. The agent must infer the whole usage context from the name alone.

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