Register SAP Agent With Local Signer

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

The description discloses that the tool uses a local signer, does not expose keypair bytes to OOBE, enforces a 0.1 SOL protocol fee, and defines success condition (agent account exists and fee invariant verified). Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false), so description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loads core purpose and usage. It is well-structured with minimal redundancy. Could be slightly more compact, but overall efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage context, differentiation from siblings, fee enforcement, and success condition. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., having a local SAP MCP profile wallet) and error scenarios, but is largely complete for a mutation tool with comprehensive schema.

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%, meaning all 11 parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema; it only mentions the 'confirm' parameter requirement. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 registers an on-chain SAP agent with the local signer, distinguishing it from raw sap_register_agent by explicitly mentioning when to use it (after hosted version returns hosted_local_signer_required). It uses specific verbs and resources ('local non-custodial SAP registry write').

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after hosted sap_register_agent returns hosted_local_signer_required, or directly instead of raw sap_register_agent. It also notes that no hosted x402 fee is paid. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools beyond the raw version.

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