Claim BSVmap Tile

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the first-is-first rule, the fact that returning a prepared inscription does not guarantee ownership, and the text/plain format following the bitmap convention. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The note about first-is-first is essential and clearly separated. No redundant sentences; every part earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly states the return value (a prepared inscription) and directs to the broadcast sibling. It covers the key workflow and the main caveat (ownership). While it doesn't detail error cases, the combination of annotations and description is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description repeats the same parameter details (tile range, feePerByte default). It adds a little context by explaining the tile maps to the 1M-tile grid, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately. Overall, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: claim a BSVmap tile by inscribing a text/plain tile name. It specifies the exact resource (BSVmap tile) and the convention, and it distinguishes from sibling inscription tools by focusing on the BSVmap claim process.

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 note provides concrete usage guidance: check if the tile is already claimed on bsvmap.io first, because first-is-first. It also indicates the follow-up action (broadcast with ordnet_inscribe_broadcast). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes the intended workflow clear.

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