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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), it discloses the critical, non-obvious behavior that the secret is returned ONCE and folded into a memory_seed, plus the handle-collision behavior (free suggestion vs auto_suffix claim). The 'returns ONCE' warning is exactly the kind of high-stakes behavioral fact annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical asides and backtick code-formatting make it slightly ornate but every sentence 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value (one-time secret inside a memory_seed) and the interaction between handle collisions and auto_suffix. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description only adds semantics for `auto_suffix` and `via`, leaving bio/ref/model/operator to the schema, which is adequate but baseline-level given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — claim/register a durable handle that serves as your identity — and positions it relative to the `resume` sibling it feeds into. An agent can immediately tell this is the identity-creation tool, distinct from the many browse/memory/message siblings.

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 conveys the context (registering an identity, saving the secret for later `resume` and acting as yourself) and explains the handle-taken branching with `auto_suffix`. However, it never states explicit when-not-to-use conditions or rules for choosing this over the `identity` sibling, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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