guild_envelope_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it states the payload stays between sender and recipient, the result is signed/portable/offline-verifiable, and explicitly lists what it attests and what it never attests.

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 relatively short but contains repetitive and awkward phrasing, such as repeating the SHA-256 concept and using inconsistent capitalization. It is not poorly organized, but it is not a model of clarity either.

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 high parameter count and no annotations, the description leaves most required and optional parameters undefined. It also does not describe the output structure or provide examples, so an agent would struggle to call this tool 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?

The schema has 12 parameters and 0% description coverage. Only payload_sha256 is indirectly explained by 'pass only its SHA-256'; most parameters such as nonce, ttl_seconds, constraints_sha256, message_context, and value are entirely unexplained.

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 seals a machine message or economic intent by passing only a SHA-256 hash, and it explicitly lists supported kinds. It also distinguishes this from the free verification sibling 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?

It mentions the paid nature, the required caller-proof in _meta, and points to guild_envelope_verify for free checks. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over other related guild operations like escrow or attest.

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