guild_prove

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a challenge, mentions self-sovereign vs custodial confirmation, and states that only guild_prove_verify has effects. However, the later claim that 'Completing it records... advancing you from journey stage 1 to 2' is ambiguous about whether this tool itself has side effects, creating some confusion about its behavioral contract.

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 reasonably compact and includes a helpful example, but the stylized 'proving rung' and 'guild-observed' phrasing adds flourish without much additional information. It could be tightened to be more direct.

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?

The description includes the main use case, expected inputs via example, return fields (challenge, expires_at, proof_class, how, what_this_earns), and the effect of advancing from journey stage 1 to 2. It does not cover error conditions, but for a simple non-mutating challenge-issuing tool this is sufficient.

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?

Although the JSON schema provides no parameter descriptions, the description gives an example call with agent_id and api_key, and explains that api_key is used for custodial confirmation while an ed25519 key supports self-sovereign confirmation. agent_id's role is implied by the 'newcomer' context and example value.

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 states that the tool starts a proof challenge, returns a challenge, and is the one journey step a newcomer can complete alone. It distinguishes the tool from guild_prove_verify by noting that only the verify tool has effects, though the 'proving rung' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 clearly tells when to use the tool: it is free, repeatable, intended for newcomers, requires no counterparty, and explicitly names guild_prove_verify as the only tool with effects. This gives an agent enough context to select it over the listed sibling tools.

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