upgrade_timestamp

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency, but the description adds valuable context: the automatic retry scheduling and the recording of bitcoin_block upon confirmation. It confirms non-destructiveness and safe repetition. Could mention that it may trigger network requests.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first explains the core action, second covers safety and retry behavior. Front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, safety, and outcome. Combined with sibling list and annotations, the agent has good context. Could mention response format or side effects (e.g., network calls) for completeness.

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 only parameter 'id' has schema coverage of 100% with a clear description ('UUID from the stamp record'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: 'Attempts to upgrade a pending OpenTimestamps proof'. The verb 'upgrade' combined with the resource 'timestamp' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_timestamp' and 'verify_timestamp'.

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 the tool's behavior (upgrade if confirmed, retry if not) and notes it is safe to call repeatedly, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'verify_timestamp' or 'inspect_timestamp'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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