create_witness

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 9999 TRX burn fee and the requirement of the configured wallet. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, and cost. It doesn't explain the response/next steps after application, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (url, network) are already well-documented. The description text does not add further parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Apply' and resource 'Super Representative', uniquely distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_witness or vote_witness. It precisely captures the tool's function.

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?

Usage is implied ('Apply to become an SR') and the prerequisite 'Requires the configured wallet' provides contextual starting point. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this vs alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'do not use if already an SR'.

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