adjust_rob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing, conveying that no on-chain submission occurs. It also explains the adjustment direction and the optional max-price update, which are meaningful behavioral details.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by optional behavior and a clear statement of the return value. Every sentence contributes useful 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 transaction-building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main inputs, optional parameters, and return format. It could further clarify whether max price numerator and denominator must be provided together, but the required UTxO identification fields are already defined in the schema.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly echoing the positive/negative adjustment behavior and optional numerator/denominator fields already documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action: adjusting the ADA amount in an existing ROB buy order, with direction semantics (positive/negative) and an optional max-price update. It clearly names the target resource (ROB buy order) and the verb (adjust), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_rob and cancel_rob.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want to change the ADA amount or max price of an existing ROB buy order. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is well implied by the action and required inputs.

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