make_keyreg_txn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a key registration transaction' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like (though there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, 7 required, mutation operation) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a key registration transaction is used for in the Algorand context, what the output looks like, or any behavioral considerations. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create a key registration transaction' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('key registration transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically distinguish from sibling tools, but the tool name 'make_keyreg_txn' is distinct from other transaction creation tools like 'make_payment_txn' or 'make_app_call_txn' in the sibling list.

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. While the sibling list includes many transaction creation tools (e.g., 'make_payment_txn', 'make_app_call_txn'), there's no indication of when a key registration transaction is appropriate versus other transaction types or what prerequisites might be needed.

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