create_timestamp

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

The annotation set is sparse (only readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but the description adds significant behavioral context: it submits to four specific calendars, stores a pending proof locally, returns a stamp ID, and explains confirmation timing. No contradictions with 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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: definition, implementation details, output, and timing. No filler or repetition.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, return value (stamp ID), and timing. It could mention the pending proof status more explicitly, but it is largely complete.

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?

The schema already describes the hash parameter as 'SHA-256 hex digest (64 chars)'. The description restates this without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action (creates a verifiable Bitcoin timestamp), specifies the input (SHA-256 hash), and names the protocol (OpenTimestamps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_timestamp and verify_timestamp by focusing on creation.

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 implies when to use this tool (to timestamp a hash) and notes the expected confirmation time. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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