zetrix_crypto_encrypt_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool encrypts a private key with a password for secure storage, which implies a write/mutation operation but lacks details on encryption algorithm, security implications, error conditions, or output format. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a cryptographic encryption tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the encryption method, security warnings, expected output (e.g., encrypted key format), or error handling, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('privateKey' and 'password'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements (e.g., key encoding, password strength) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the action ('encrypt') and target ('private key') with the purpose ('for secure storage'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'zetrix_crypto_decrypt_key' by specifying encryption rather than decryption. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other key-related tools like 'zetrix_crypto_generate_keypair' or 'zetrix_crypto_validate_key' beyond the encryption focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a private key from generation or import), when not to use it (e.g., if key is already encrypted), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'zetrix_crypto_decrypt_key' for reverse operations.

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