erc8004_register_agent

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the critical requirement of wallet + confirmation, which is essential for an agent to invoke it safely. This adds value by preventing failed attempts and clarifying the operation's irreversible nature in combination with destructiveHint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core purpose and the key prerequisite. No wasted words; the parenthetical adds essential operational context without bloat.

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 covers the primary operational constraint (wallet + confirmation) but omits return value details or post-registration behavior. With 6 parameters and no output schema, it leans on the schema but leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for name, chainId, agentURI, services, description, and mcpEndpoint. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Register an agent on the ERC-8004 Identity Registry'. It distinguishes from siblings like erc8004_get_agent and erc8004_update_agent via the unique 'register' verb.

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 implies usage by noting it is a write operation requiring wallet + confirmation, but it does not explicitly contrast with erc8004_update_agent or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for new registrations, but it lacks explicit alternative direction.

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