encrypt_contest_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: encryption happens locally, the plaintext never leaves the process, and only the envelope is safe to pin. It does not describe determinism or error behavior for a malformed key.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by the pinning rule and the one-step alternative. No filler.

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 two-parameter local transform with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (an envelope) and how it may be used, which is sufficient. It lacks any note on envelope format or failure modes for an invalid public key, which would round it out.

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 both parameters documented including the base64url pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces locality for the plaintext but adds no format or source detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (seal/encrypt), the resource (plaintext contest answer), the key used (poster public key), and the output (encrypted envelope). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like decrypt_contest_entry and enter_contest.

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?

Names an alternative path ('enter_contest with content does all of this in one step') and a hard rule about what may be pinned, so the agent knows both the shortcut and the constraint. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions beyond that routing hint.

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