create_chained_governance_block

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'creates' (mutation), 'preserves chain of provenance', but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response format. Minimal behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words. Efficiently communicates core function.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description is too minimal. Does not explain return value, error conditions, parentBlock format, or constraints on derivationType. Incomplete for a complex chaining tool.

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 71% with 5 of 7 parameters described. Description adds no further parameter meaning beyond schema; does not explain sensitivity (e.g., privateKey) or format expectations. Baseline of 3 appropriate given schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states action ('create'), resource ('governance block for derivative content'), and distinguishing feature ('references original publisher's block, preserves chain of provenance'). Clearly differentiates from siblings like 'generate_governance_block' and 'verify_governance_block'.

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?

Description implies usage for derivative content needing provenance chain, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling list includes many governance tools, but no comparative context.

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