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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers important behavioral facts: Ronin does not retain the secret (non-custodial), and losing the key means losing the identity (irreversible consequence). It adds a pointer to the sealing skill, though it omits key format details and any auth prerequisites.

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 states the action, followed by the consequence and a remediation pointer. Dense but every clause earns its place, aside from the parenthetical URL which is slightly interruptive.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema key-generation tool, the description covers what is produced, the custody model, and the consequence of key loss. Return-value formatting is the only minor omission, which is acceptable without an output 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 tool takes zero parameters (empty schema), so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 (make) and resource (a new Ronin identity consisting of a secret key and its public key), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, ronin_register, which an agent might reasonably confuse with identity creation.

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?

Usage is implied ('Make a new Ronin identity') and it hints at a lifecycle by pointing to the ronin-seal skill for later actions. However, it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so an agent has no explicit routing guidance versus ronin_register or the other identity-related siblings.

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