zcash_identity_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that registration occurs via an attestation and returns a leaf hash and URLs, but does not mention side effects, permissions required, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens if the agent_id is already registered.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Register an agent identity on ZAP1') and efficiently adds the mechanism and return values. No wasted words.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions the return types (leaf hash and verification URLs), which provides useful context. However, it could mention potential limitations or error conditions, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 the schema already defines both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely states the overall purpose. 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 tool's action: 'Register an agent identity on ZAP1 via an AGENT_REGISTER attestation.' It also specifies the return values (leaf hash and verification URLs), making the purpose precise and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_agent_status or lookup_transaction.

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 does not mention preconditions, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools for different tasks (e.g., checking status or verifying proofs).

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