timestamp_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is stored verbatim for `openssl ts -verify`, that a rejection is refused and never stored, and that the operation appends a chained entry. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes like network errors or partial writes.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the rationale, and the storage/rejection behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses precise technical references (RFC 3161, eIDAS Art. 41, openssl ts -verify) without fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral contract: what gets stamped, how the token is stored, and what happens on rejection. It doesn't describe the return value or error handling, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. A 4 is warranted because the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `url` parameter's role (the TSA endpoint) and implies the actor parameter is not central. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the `actor` parameter or its default behavior, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds meaning for `url` but not for `actor`.

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 a specific verb ('ask an RFC 3161 Time-Stamping Authority at `url` to stamp the action ledger's tail hash and append the token as a chained entry') and clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes this from other ledger operations by explaining the TSA's role as a third-party time statement, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 explains when to use this tool: when an operator wants third-party timestamping of the ledger tail, and contrasts it with the operator's own clock proving order. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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