Create Charter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that the artifact is a constitutional root defining offices, amendment rules and dissolution policy, but says nothing about key handling (founder_private_key), authorization requirements, or whether charter creation is effectively irreversible.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the second sentence scoping the artifact's contents. No filler, though it could have converted the same word budget into routing or prerequisite information.

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 genesis write (8 params, 6 required, nested office objects with spend/delegation/succession fields and Ed25519 keys) with no output schema, yet the description never mentions keys, required setup, or the identifier a caller presumably needs to feed sign_charter/verify_charter/propose_amendment. Too much is left to inference for the tool's complexity.

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 a fairly high 75%, so the schema already documents most inputs. The description loosely maps to the offices, amendment, and dissolution groups but omits the two cryptographic key parameters and founder_role entirely, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new institutional charter') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('the constitutional root of an organization'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent creation siblings such as create_policy_context, create_principal, or create_decision_lineage_receipt, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a charter must exist before sign_charter/verify_charter/attest_to_floor are meaningful), and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no routing help beyond the one-line purpose.

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