User Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious prerequisite that a wallet signature identity is required. The closing 'Read-only and idempotent' sentence merely restates the annotations, adding no new information.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, return shape second, usage prerequisite third. The final clause about being read-only and idempotent duplicates the annotations and could be dropped without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key return field for quick scanning, and it covers the auth prerequisite and the pre-mutation check an agent needs before acting. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not invent parameter guidance that the empty schema contradicts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the enabled permission operations (autoSettings.permitOperations) for the authenticated user. It is clearly distinct from siblings like tronsave_get_user_auto_setting and tronsave_get_user_info by naming the exact setting field it returns.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before mutating auto-sell or auto-buy rules to confirm the action is allowed, which routes the agent away from blind mutation via tronsave_update_auto_sell_setting / tronsave_update_auto_buy_setting. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition, but the scope is narrow enough that this is a minor gap.

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