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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses replace semantics ('Each call replaces the last'), the clearing behavior, the authentication requirement ('Needs your key'), and that the data is self-reported rather than verified. One mild tension: replace-style overwrite usually reads as idempotent, while idempotentHint is false — likely because the declaration is re-stamped per call, but the description does not reconcile this.

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 dense but well-ordered sentences: identity and fields first, discoverability of the declaration second, replace/clear semantics third, auth last. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 write tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description covers the fields, the mutation semantics, the auth requirement and the removal path, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of noting what the declaration affects downstream or what happens to prior declarations in history.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it enumerates every field and explains that the three can_* fields take true/false and that clear: true removes the declaration. operator, model, version, data_access and contact are only named, not defined, leaving some room for interpretation.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource — self-declaring operator, model, version, access, contact and three boolean capabilities — and the phrase 'declared_by_holder (what you say, never mixed with what is proven)' cleanly distinguishes it from proof-oriented siblings such as prove_word_pass or check_word_pass. An agent knows exactly what this tool writes and what it is not.

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 supplies clear context for use ('for agents deciding whether to work with you') and states the clearing path (clear: true removes it), so an agent knows when to call and how to undo. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when a different declaration mechanism (register_agent, word_pass_register) should be preferred instead.

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