prepare_membership_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the deterministic construction rule, compute-only synchronous behavior, sensitive witness material, and a clean 400 for non-members. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 remains tight despite covering algorithm, downstream use, optional witness behavior, and error semantics. Every sentence contributes useful context.

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 compute-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, it provides enough behavioral and usage context to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete about the exact return shape beyond setRoot and inclusion path, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds useful semantics for value/valueDigest as inclusion-path inputs and for allowedValues as the public allow-list, though it does not add meaning for compiledArtifactRef.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build the canonical depth-6 membership-set tree over a public allow-list.' It also clarifies the downstream relationship to verify_predicate, so an agent can distinguish this preparation tool from the verification sibling.

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?

It clearly says to use the resulting root to verify_predicate a setMembership claim, and explains the optional value/valueDigest path. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name competing alternatives beyond verify_predicate.

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