byte_register_publisher

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds important context: requires PRIVATE_KEY, registers on-chain, and explains the stake approval flow. This goes beyond what annotations provide and shows no contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes new information. No redundancy or 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 registration tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, on-chain side effects, private key requirement, and stake behavior. It does not detail parameter relationships or prerequisites beyond stake, but remains complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning, mainly reinforcing the stake parameter's default and approval step, but does not significantly compensate for any missing parameter detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Register as a data publisher') and specifies that it 'Registers a schema and the publisher on-chain.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like byte_publish_data or byte_subscribe.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance for the stake parameter ('leave stake at 0') and notes the approval requirement for non-zero stakes, giving practical context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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