create_principal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the principal receives its own Ed25519 keypair, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects like persistence, irrevocability, or permission requirements, leaving some key behaviors undisclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It mentions the keypair generation, which implies an output, but does not specify the response format or any side effects like record creation. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the mention of 'human or org' loosely maps to display_name but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool creates a principal identity and specifies it is for humans or organizations behind agents. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the Ed25519 keypair, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context ('human or org behind agents') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_delegation or create_agent_context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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