Principal-drift ledger for standing instructions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the residual-entry fallback and that entries are signed. It does not state permissions, side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether a ledger write occurs.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core action and fallback immediately.

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 complex five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. The fallback behavior is useful, but the agent lacks essential parameter and side-effect context.

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% for five parameters, and the description does not explain ledger_id, id, text, rank, or principal. The agent is given no semantic mapping between the parameters and the compile operation.

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 names a specific verb, "Compile," and a concrete resource, "standing rule into a signed ledger entry," plus the residual fallback case. It is distinguishable from ledger_create/diff/execute/verify by the compile semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 describes the residual fallback when compilation cannot be faithful, but gives no guidance on when to choose ledger_compile over ledger_create or other sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a create mutation scoped to 'your account' but omits permissions/auth requirements, idempotency, uniqueness behavior for duplicate names, side effects, and what is returned.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and easy to parse, even though it is sparse overall.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover required behavior, return expectations, or constraints for the lone undocumented parameter, leaving material gaps an agent would need before calling it.

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?

There is one parameter, 'name', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about its format, constraints, uniqueness, or relation to the account scope. It mentions 'standing-instruction ledger' but does not explain the parameter itself.

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 and resource: create a standing-instruction ledger. That is clearly distinct from compile/diff/execute/verify/version siblings, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or differentiate further.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus the ledger_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no conditions for creating a new ledger versus acting on an existing one. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses metering ('Metered like the HTTP diff') and the possible result statuses, but never states whether the call is read-only or whether outcomes like OVERRIDE_RECEIPT or CONFIRMATION-REQUIRED cause writes, nor any auth requirements.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated status list is long but carries real information rather than padding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested object, the definition is only partially complete. The six outcome codes partially substitute for a return schema and metering is noted, but the shape of the 'order' input and the read/write semantics remain unexplained.

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 two required parameters, one of which is an untyped nested object ('order'). The description only obliquely implies that 'order' is the order being diffed and 'ledger_id' identifies the target ledger; it provides no field-level or format guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Diff an order against a ledger at intake') and enumerates the six possible outcomes, which distinguishes it from siblings like ledger_verify and ledger_execute. It stops short of 5 because 'diff' and 'at intake' are domain jargon left undefined, so an agent must infer the precise operation.

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 phrase 'at intake' implies a workflow stage where this tool applies, giving implied usage context. However, it never names an alternative (notably ledger_verify, which sounds overlapping) or states when this tool should not be used, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the server independently re-diffs, a contradiction surfaces as a 409 error result, and an attestation naming the in-force ledger version is returned. However, it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what state the order mutates, leaving material gaps for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the concurrency/return semantics trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 mutation tool with a nested payload object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: the shape of 'order', the side effects of execution, and prerequisite state. The return behavior is covered, but the input and mutation semantics are not.

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% and the description explains neither 'ledger_id' nor the nested 'order' object. The opaque nested object is the core payload of the call, and its structure is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 and resource ('Execute an order') and adds meaningful scope detail (server re-diffs, returns an attestation). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ledger_diff or ledger_verify, but the purpose is clear enough to identify without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the five sibling tools. The reader must infer that this is the commit/mutation step, but nothing states when to prefer it over ledger_verify or ledger_diff.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the crypto scheme (Ed25519) and the trust anchor (published keys), but says nothing about the outcome of a failed verification, whether the operation is read-only, whether it hits the network for key retrieval, or what it returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; the verb and object lead immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool taking a nested object, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested-object parameter documented nowhere, the description should explain the verification result (boolean vs error), key source, and record shape. It leaves all three unaddressed.

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 single 'record' parameter is an untyped nested object with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the record is the signed artifact being checked, but gives no insight into its required fields (payload, signature, key id) that an agent would need to construct it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying a ledger record's Ed25519 signature against published keys. The verb 'verify' is clearly distinct from siblings ledger_compile, ledger_create, ledger_diff, ledger_execute, and ledger_version, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other ledger_* siblings, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., that the record must first be created or that keys must be fetched). The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-like operation by referring to a current version and verification, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, cost, or what verification result is returned.

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 definition is a single concise sentence with no wasted words and the core concepts are front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not resolve ambiguity with ledger_verify, explain the parameter, or disclose behavioral details needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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 only parameter, ledger_id, has no schema description and the description does not explain its format or meaning beyond implying it identifies a ledger. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but provides almost no parameter guidance.

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 identifies the resource as a ledger and mentions current version/head hash plus chain verification, but it is a noun phrase without a clear verb and overlaps with the sibling ledger_verify tool. An agent can infer it retrieves something, but cannot cleanly distinguish it from verification tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no explicit alternative named among ledger_verify, ledger_diff, or other siblings. The mention of chain verification may even suggest overlap with ledger_verify without clarifying when to choose this tool instead.

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