Inscribe HTML Content

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false. The description adds 'Requires: Wallet must be initialized' and specifies return fields (txid, inscriptionId, viewUrl). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 a clear purpose and uses a compact, structured format (Args, Returns, Requires). The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first, but overall it is concise and well-organized.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential context: one-step operation, wallet prerequisite, and return value shape. It doesn't discuss fees beyond feePerByte or immutability, but these are adequately covered by annotations and 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?

Though schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description's stated default for feePerByte (0.2) directly contradicts the schema's default (0.15), which can mislead the agent. It adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions and introduces an error.

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 it 'Create and broadcast an HTML inscription in one step' and identifies it as a convenience tool that combines preparing and broadcasting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordnet_inscribe_prepare, ordnet_inscribe_broadcast, and JSON/text inscription variants.

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 explains this is a one-step convenience tool for HTML inscriptions, implying it is the right choice when you want to skip the staged prepare/broadcast flow. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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