Update Auto Sell Setting

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires a wallet signature identity'), the overwrite side effect on stored settings, the non-idempotency nuance across differing field sets (refining idempotentHint=false), the return payload name, and concrete failure modes. The overwrite note is consistent with destructiveHint=false since it is a config replacement, not data destruction.

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 action, then the return value, side effects, guidance, and failure modes in that order — no filler sentences. Slightly dense as a single paragraph, and the return-payload sentence is partly redundant with the existing output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-required-param, deeply nested mutation, the description covers auth, side effects, failure modes, and sibling routing, and the output schema covers the return value. What is missing is any description of the nested configuration objects or what constitutes a valid combination, which is the main residual risk for correct invocation.

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 reported at 0%, and the description never explains the three top-level objects (`poolSetting`, `addOnFeature`, `paymentConfig`) or what a valid field combination looks like, despite warning that invalid combinations fail. The only semantic added is 'partial fields', which does usefully signal merge-style update behavior, but it does not compensate for the nested-object gap.

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 ('Update the existing auto-sell configuration with partial fields') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `tronsave_register_auto_sell` (first-time setup) and `tronsave_get_user_auto_setting` (baseline read). An agent can pick this tool over its lookalikes without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('INCREMENTAL changes after registration'), explicit prerequisite workflow ('read the baseline via tronsave_get_user_auto_setting to avoid accidental resets'), and an explicit exclusion routing first-time setup to `tronsave_register_auto_sell`. This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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