wisdom_generate_keypair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only names the two actions without their side effects. It omits that secret key material is persisted to disk, that gateway registration is on by default (register:true, while 'optionally' implies skipping is the safe default), and what the call returns. For a credential-generation tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single 12-word sentence front-loads the core action and wastes nothing. The 'optionally register' clause earns its place by surfacing the tool's second behavior rather than burying it in the schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must clarify defaults, side effects, and return values on its own. It clarifies none of these — an agent cannot tell whether the keypair is returned, printed, or only persisted, nor whether a repeat call overwrites an existing identity. This is thin for a security-sensitive setup tool.

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%, with save_to, register, and description already fully documented including paths and defaults. The description adds only a rephrasing of the register behavior and no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Generate a new Ed25519 keypair' — with the algorithm specified, making the core action unmistakable. The secondary clause 'optionally register as a new agent' maps to the register parameter. Among 39 sibling tools, none performs keypair generation, so there is no ambiguity with alternatives.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need an Ed25519 identity or a new agent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no reference to alternatives, and no suggestion to check existing agents via wisdom_list_agents or wisdom_get_agent before creating a new identity. Usage context is inferable but never stated.

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