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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it flags the WRITE nature, the auth requirement, the off-chain storage model with negative IDs, and a non-obvious side effect (a default 1 OXA/month plan is created automatically). It omits error behavior, idempotency, and what is returned on success.

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?

Four tight sentences with the key distinctions front-loaded and a useful cross-reference to the update tool. The packed parentheticals ('source="central", off-chain, negative ID') are dense but each element carries information; nothing is filler.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity model, auth prerequisites, write semantics, and the automatic plan side effect. The main remaining gap is what the response contains (e.g., the new agent's negative ID), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the input schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's note about access_token being a registered-user JWT and the mention of the auto-created plan adds minor context but does not explain name, tags, skills, category, description, or capabilities beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a centralized agent') and immediately disambiguates it from the on-chain alternative by describing it as off-chain with a negative ID and explicitly 'NOT an on-chain NFT'. That distinction is exactly what separates it from siblings like actora_identity_register.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (requires access_token as a registered-user JWT) and routes plan adjustment to actora_central_agent_update. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over an on-chain identity creation beyond the NFT contrast, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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