Configure Yolfi Settlement Wallets

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds the key merge semantics — supplied networks are added/updated while others are preserved — plus an approval-reuse constraint that annotations cannot express. It does note that the schema also restates the preservation behavior, so the added value is partly redundant, and no rate-limit or failure behavior is described.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the scope-defining constraint is front-loaded and the procedural guidance follows. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers intent, merge behavior, and pre-write procedure. Because there is no output schema, the description would ideally state what a successful PATCH returns or confirms, which is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so settlementAccounts and its example fields (id, address, tokens) are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the soft hint about "wallet or token decisions" without clarifying required vs. optional fields or array semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 uses specific verbs ("add or update") and a specific resource ("settlement networks"), and the partial-update scope ("only the supplied... preserving other configured networks") makes the effect unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, yolfi_organization_update, which an agent could plausibly confuse for wallet configuration.

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 concrete operating instructions: read current settings before writing, reuse already-approved wallet addresses, and only ask for missing wallet or token decisions. That is genuine when/how guidance, but it stops short of naming the sibling tool to call for the read step or stating when not to use this tool at all.

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