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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals authentication requirements (Knox Bearer API key) and that unauthenticated calls are rejected. It describes the return bundle (anchor record, C2PA envelope, affidavit) and functional limitations. Missing details like rate limits or error handling, but still strong disclosure.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with a logical flow: purpose, modes, return value, disclaimers, and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, authentication, and return values. It explains the three modes and what the tool does not do. However, it could mention the expected response format (e.g., JSON) and any potential rate limits or quotas.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the three modes and the hybrid structure, but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description of the 'source' enum aligns with 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 tool anchors creation events to the Knox event chain and returns a provenance bundle. It specifies three distinct creation modes (human_original, ai_generated, ai_assisted_hybrid), making the purpose unambiguous. With sibling tool verify_provenance, the creation focus is clearly differentiated.

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 explains when to use each creation mode based on the source parameter, providing clear contextual guidance. It also states what the tool does not do (adjudicate authorship, grant copyright, enforce IP). However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool verify_provenance or provide exclusion criteria.

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