generate_contest_keypair

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

The description carries the full behavioral burden for an unannotated-rich operation: it discloses that the private key is returned in this result and must be stored immediately, that losing it makes entries permanently unreadable, and that entries on IPFS cannot be retracted. That is critical, non-obvious context beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint provide.

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 what is produced, then the publish/keep instruction, then the save-now warning. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return — and it does, naming both publicKey and privateKey and warning that the private key is shown here. An agent has everything needed to call and act on the result 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?

The tool takes zero input parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description's mention of publicKey/privateKey concerns output fields rather than input, which is not a parameter-semantics gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Generate a fresh X25519 key pair") plus the purpose ("for running a contest"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like encrypt_contest_entry / decrypt_contest_entry and get_identity, which cover different key/entry operations.

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?

It establishes the operating context — generate this before running a contest, publish the publicKey as post_bounty contestPublicKey — which is clear usage guidance. It does not, however, explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as get_identity for existing keys, nor any exclusions.

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