embed_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool prepares documents 'for on-chain storage' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it modifies content, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'prepared document data' means operationally. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely involves data transformation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose sets context, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the schema gaps. No redundant or verbose content is present.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'prepared' means, error conditions) and return value specifics beyond a generic 'dictionary.' Given the complexity of on-chain operations, more context would be helpful.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'content' as document content, 'content_type' as MIME type with default, and 'encoding' as content encoding with options. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond the encoding enum.

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 tool's purpose: 'Prepare a document for on-chain storage.' It specifies the action (prepare) and resource (document) with a specific context (on-chain storage). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_document' or 'parse_envelope' beyond the preparation focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to siblings like 'encode_op_return' or 'create_timestamp' which might handle similar on-chain data operations. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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