Create and register an Achromat identity

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds far more: a local private-key file with user-only read permission, a ~1 second proof of work, an external registration, the fact that only the public half is transmitted, and that a lost file is unrecoverable. It also surfaces the consent requirement, which annotations cannot express.

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?

It is front-loaded with the problem state, then the action, then the consent instruction, which is the right order for a high-stakes call. Every sentence carries weight, though the confirmation requirement is stated in both the description and the schema description, a minor redundancy.

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 only four annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: prerequisites, side effects on disk and on the service, timing, security properties, irreversibility, and which tools become usable afterwards. An agent has everything needed to invoke this safely.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema_coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the full meaning of user_confirmed, including the 'only after the user said yes' gate. The description restates the same confirmation requirement rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and outcome: generates an Ed25519 key pair, completes proof of work, registers the public key with Achromat MOM, and saves the private key locally. It also names the precondition (no key exists yet) and the postcondition (achromat_recall and achromat_calibrate become available), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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 gives an explicit, ordered protocol: ask the user, wait for a yes, explain the key-handling facts, then call with user_confirmed=true. It also flags the state transition that unlocks sibling tools afterwards. Nothing about when to invoke it is left to inference.

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