radiant_build_agent_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior—building a profile with blake3 commitment—and implies preparation rather than execution of registration via 'suitable for'. It does not state whether any state changes, authentication requirements, or return values are involved.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded verb and object, and the downstream purpose in a subordinate clause. Every element 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent: it doesn't explain what the tool returns, whether wave_name must be pre-checked, whether address must be validated, or whether the profile is local or broadcast. An agent would need external knowledge to call this correctly.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the WAVE/on-chain context rather than per-parameter detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('AI agent identity profile') and adds the distinctive requirement of a blake3 commitment. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as radiant_build_data_asset and radiant_resolve_agent_identity.

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 states the intended use context: profiles are suitable for on-chain registration via the AgentIdentity contract and WAVE naming system. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide tool selection.

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