sign_charter

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Add a founding signature' without explaining side effects, required permissions, whether the charter must already exist, or any state changes. It doesn't mention the private keys or the signing process.

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, succinct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, delivering the core action without unnecessary words.

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?

This is a complex operation involving 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description is grossly insufficient to understand the tool's full behavior, return values, or expected usage, especially given the sensitive nature of private keys.

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 only 20% (only resigner_private_key has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to parameters like charter_id, signer_role, signer_private_key, or signer_public_key, and does not explain their roles or relationships.

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 ('Add a founding signature') and the resource ('charter'), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_approval_signature' by specifying 'founding', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 such as 'add_approval_signature' or 'create_charter'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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