Register Auto Sell

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, but the description adds real value: it discloses the persistence side effect on future delegation/sell behavior, the wallet-signature identity requirement, and specific failure modes (invalid configs, unauthorized sessions, policy restrictions). It only partially builds on 'not idempotent' already flagged in annotations, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then routing and failure conditions. Four dense sentences with no filler, though it could consolidate the idempotency restatement.

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?

Returns are covered by the output schema, and usage/auth/failure guidance is solid, but for a deeply nested configuration tool with undocumented top-level parameters the description omits what each config branch controls—a notable gap against the complexity.

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 description says nothing about poolSetting, addOnFeature, or paymentConfig semantics, and schema description coverage for the top-level parameters is effectively 0%. With three nested config objects whose fields carry the actual behavior, failing to compensate in prose leaves an agent dependent on the nested schema alone.

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 ('Create the initial auto-sell configuration') and scopes it to first-time setup, cleanly distinguishable from tronsave_update_auto_sell_setting and tronsave_get_user_auto_setting. An agent can identify what it does without examining the schema.

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 'Use for FIRST-TIME setup only,' names the sibling for subsequent edits, and instructs reading current state first to avoid overwriting. This is a full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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