Send Prepared Calls

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 does disclose useful behavior: accepted input shapes and a sequential fallback for non-batching wallets. But it omits permission/auth requirements, whether submission is irreversible, and what the fallback means for atomicity. Partial coverage for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then accepted shapes, then fallback behavior. No filler, though the shape list is compacted rather than fully explained.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input normalization and fallback but leaves return values, auth needs, and error/warning handling (beyond the allowWarnings flag in schema) undescribed.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including defaults and the executionProfile enum-like values. The description adds the normalization-shape context but no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 chain (normalize + submit) on a specific resource (Base plugin prepare response) and names the transport (WalletChan). This distinguishes it clearly from send_calls, send_transaction, and agent_oneshot_relay_calls.

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?

The description implies the tool is for harness-fetched Base plugin prepare responses, which implies usage context, but it never states when to prefer it over send_calls or agent_oneshot_relay_calls, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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