provision_signer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: private keys never leave KMS, non-custodial, costs, and required credit. This adds value beyond schema. However, it does not mention if the operation is idempotent or what happens on duplicate provisioning.

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 four focused sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, key security, cost breakdown, credit requirement. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers core functionality and constraints but lacks output information. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the response contains (e.g., signer address or ID). This is a gap for a provisioning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats cost info already in the schema's chain description and adds minimal extra meaning. It clarifies the optional recovery_address purpose but does not exceed the schema's provided descriptions.

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 action 'Provision', the resource 'AWS KMS-backed Ethereum signer', and the context 'for signing smart-contract write transactions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_signer, get_signer, etc., by specifying the creation and unique backend.

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 context about costs and credit requirements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as initial signer creation, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'drain_signer' or 'set_recovery_address' are given.

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