inscribe_child

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a broadcast (mutation), that it returns immediately rather than waiting on confirmation, and the expected confirmation window. It stops short of stating cost/fee consequences or what happens to the commit funds if the reveal step is never completed, which matters for an on-chain two-step flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the step and action, then prerequisites, timing, and a labeled 'Returns:' line — easy to scan. The trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is a cross-sell that is only marginally relevant to invoking this tool, a small amount of unearned text.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (commitTxid, revealAddress, revealAmount, parentInscriptionId, feeRate), which is exactly what the agent needs. For a two-step on-chain mutation, the remaining gap is fee/cost expectations, partly covered by the sibling estimate_child_inscription_fee.

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 100%, including feeRate enum semantics and the parentInscriptionId ownership note, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent content (ownership of the parent) restates what the schema already says and adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a child inscription') plus an explicit step label ('STEP 1: Broadcast commit transaction') that separates it from the sibling inscribe_child_reveal. The description also names the linking semantics (provenance to a parent per the Ordinals spec), so an agent can distinguish this from inscribe / inscribe_reveal without opening the schema.

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?

Names the follow-up tool explicitly ('use `inscribe_child_reveal` to complete') and states the timing condition ('after it confirms, typically 10-60 min'). It also gives a hard prerequisite ('You must own the parent inscription'), which prevents a whole class of failed calls.

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