create_principal

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a principal identity and generates an Ed25519 keypair, but it does not explain what happens to the keypair (returned? stored?), authorization requirements, or side effects like persistence. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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: first states the core purpose, second adds a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary information, front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the primary function and a notable side effect but lacks details on the lifecycle of the keypair, return values, or how the identity is used. It is moderately complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself defines all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, only a general statement about keypair generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'principal identity', adding context that it represents a human or organization behind agents and explicitly mentions that it gets its own Ed25519 keypair. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_agent_context' or 'register_agora_agent'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'register_agora_agent' or 'create_delegation'). There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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