anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the output is a signed hash commitment, that it must be published somewhere the operator cannot alter, and why it defeats an operator who holds the receipt key. It does not cover failure modes or whether the anchor is stored locally, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the security rationale is relevant, but it is verbose with ALL-CAPS emphasis, an RFC reference, a docs path, and a shell command. It could be tightened without losing meaning, so it does not reach the top tier.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, it names the exact snapshot fields, instructs the user to publish them externally, and routes to verify_consistency() for later verification. What remains implicit is the precise return mechanics and any prerequisites such as key configuration or store state needed before emitting the anchor.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics.

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 operation: emit a signed head commitment—a compact snapshot that hash-commits the entire write and erasure history. It also distinguishes itself from verification-focused siblings by saying 'Record this now; check later with verify_consistency().'

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: when an externally witnessed, tamper-evident anchor is needed, and it explains why verify_writes() alone cannot cover this case. It points to verify_consistency() for later checks, but it does not explicitly list exclusion cases or compare to close siblings like verify_cosigned_anchor or witness.

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