agent_build

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Create' and 'WORM seal' but does not explain side effects (e.g., persistence, overwrite rules), required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool's mutation nature is implied but unsupported with specifics.

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, no extra words. The first sentence captures purpose, the second lists classes. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (the manifest?), how WORM seal is applied, or any post-creation behavior. The mention of WORM seal is defined nowhere in the schema, causing confusion.

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%, meeting the baseline. The description repeats the enum values for agent_class but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No additional context for capabilities or model.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'sovereign agent manifest', listing key components (class, capabilities, model, WORM seal) and available classes. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, such as ada_contract_generate or sovereign_inject, which could create similar manifests.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. The description lists classes but does not advise on selection criteria or context for use.

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