Prepare Veil Deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that the output is unsigned calldata and that submission happens only under submitPreparedCalls with WalletChan popup approval, but it omits permissions requirements, what happens on warnings/atomicity failures, and whether any on-chain action is taken by default.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the submission flag guidance follows immediately. Every clause carries information relevant to invoking the tool.

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 9-parameter preparation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the shape or downstream use of the produced calldata (e.g., that it feeds send_prepared_calls) or the default non-submitting behavior. It is adequate to attempt a call but leaves notable gaps an agent would need to fill.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including owner, chain, previewOnly, allowWarnings, and atomicRequired. The description only names submitPreparedCalls and the ETH/USDC asset set, adding marginal meaning beyond the already-rich schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Prepare') and resource ('unsigned Base calldata for ETH or USDC Veil deposit'), making the tool's intent immediately graspable. It is distinguishable from most siblings by naming the Veil deposit asset scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with neighbors like veil_prepare_register or send_prepared_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?

It gives one concrete usage cue — set submitPreparedCalls=true to submit through WalletChan popup approval — which is helpful in-line guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as send_prepared_calls or when only previewing is appropriate, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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