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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, idempotent, or what side effects occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity and could benefit from a slightly longer structure (e.g., listing the required parameters or adding a note about prerequisites).

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error states, or the effect of optional parameters. An agent would lack critical context for safe invocation.

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 50% (the two required params have descriptions in the schema, but npub and dpop_token have only defaults). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter—it does not explain format, restrictions, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Attach a capability to one of the symbols that implement it' uses a specific verb ('attach') and clearly identifies the resources (capability and symbol). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cypher_bind_rationale_to_symbol' or 'cypher_anchor_symbol' by specifying the binding direction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cypher_upsert_capability' or 'cypher_what_realizes_capability'). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context about symbol implementation.

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