radiant_register_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the key is stored server-side, specifies the keyring file path and required POSIX permissions (0600), and implies the write is persistent and the key is not transmitted again. It doesn't explicitly state error behavior or that this is a write operation, but the nature is clear from the context. It adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds storage details and permissions. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool is a simple write operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, storage location, permissions, and parameter semantics. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not necessary without an output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error-handling or idempotency notes, but these are covered by the overwrite parameter and general behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the parameters: it explains that the WIF is the last transmission, that the alias is used as key_alias on signing tools, and that overwrite defaults to false. These details add practical meaning beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Store') and resource (WIF private key in server-side keyring under an alias). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like radiant_list_keys and radiant_remove_key by explaining its role in storing keys for later signing, making it unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool: to store a key so that signing tools can reference it by alias instead of resending the WIF. It also provides context about keeping the WIF out of transport and logs, which helps the agent decide when this is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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