Manage Agent Identity

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: whoami is 'no network, no secrets', claim is 'one-way', and logout has a side-effect (clear local key but no relay revocation). Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description enriches with specific constraints and non-obvious behaviors.

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 sentence that efficiently packs all actions and key details. While dense, it front-loads the core concept and uses clear separators (pipe). Minor conciseness could be improved by splitting into bullet points, but it remains effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three actions, no output schema, but with annotations), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: each action's purpose, constraints (one-way, no network), side effects, and cross-tool reference for revocation. It is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions, but the description adds behavioral context (e.g., 'one-way' for claim, 'does NOT revoke' for logout) that goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This enhances understanding without being redundant.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Agent identity + binding', and explicitly enumerates three distinct actions (whoami, claim, logout) with specific behaviors. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the 'key' tool for revocation, ensuring the agent understands this tool's unique role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action and, crucially, when not to: 'logout does NOT revoke it on the relay — use the key tool's revoke for that'. This direct alternative usage instruction is highly actionable for an AI agent.

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