Submit Attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that attestations are claims rather than proofs, cannot cover for-all clauses, are limited to existential clauses, lose strength when minted from weak CI assertions, and cause COs to become at-risk upon expiry. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers constraints and consequences without redundancy. It is somewhat long and dense, but each sentence contributes meaningful domain context, so the length is justified.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers intended use, explicit exclusions, downstream effects, expiration behavior, and epistemic limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gaps remain around whether an existing current attestation is replaced and the meaning of server_version.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why expires_at matters (COs become at-risk) and by framing statement and evidence as a responsible party's claim rather than proof, which clarifies how those fields should be interpreted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'Record that a responsible party affirmed an assumption holds'—and immediately scopes it with 'Only for external assumptions.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from related assertion or disposition 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 explicitly states when the tool applies (external assumptions) and when it does not (non-applicability assumptions), and names the required alternative workflow: 'submit assertions + run mipiti-verify.' It also explains the downstream effect on linked COs, giving an agent enough context to decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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