certify_creation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the process: scores authorship (AAS 0-100), signs a C2PA manifest under the agent's sovereign key (tier 'signed'), timestamps (RFC 3161), and anchors to Bitcoin on a public immutable ledger. It also mentions it's free and lists return values (certificate id, authorship score, tier, verify URL).

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 well-structured: a compelling tagline, then process explanation, usage guidance, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Not a patent' sentence is somewhat tangential. It is not overly verbose, but a minor trim could improve conciseness.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, the role of each parameter, the outcome (return values), and usage context. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool without additional information.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description compensates fully with a dedicated 'Args' block that explains each parameter: prompt, output, handle, model, and tools. It clarifies what each represents (e.g., 'prompt: the task/instruction that produced the output'), adding critical meaning 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?

The description opens with a clear, action-oriented statement: 'Prove you made it first: timestamp an AI creation and anchor it to Bitcoin.' It specifies the verb (timestamp/anchor), resource (AI creation), and the outcome (proof of authorship). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'get_agent_passport' and 'verify_certificate' by being a creation certification tool, not a passport or verification tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever an agent makes something worth proving it made first.' It also clarifies that it's not a patent but verifiable priority/prior art, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare with other tools, but given the siblings are different operations, the guidance is clear enough.

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