gm_register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the dry-run default, that confirm:true broadcasts a real mainnet transaction, the gas-gate requirement, and the 'needs gas' response behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers the dry-run behavior, approval requirement, and gas gate in order of importance. Every sentence provides useful operational guidance without redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the action, the transaction-preparation default, the confirmation path, the network, and the gas prerequisite. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for confirm, explaining that it is false by default and must only be set true after explicit human approval. It also ties name to the register(name) call.

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 tool registers an ERC-8004 identity on Ink by calling register(name) on the Identity Registry. It also clarifies the outcome—becoming a registered agent who can say agent-GM—which distinguishes it from siblings like gm_agent_gm.

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?

The description provides clear context for when registration is needed and explains the dry-run default versus the confirm:true broadcast path. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the registration-before-GM sequence is strongly implied.

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