inscribe_child_reveal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses what the tx spends (commit output and parent inscription UTXO), what comes back (parent returned to your address, child created), and the return value shape. It does not state irreversibility/broadcast finality, fee source, or failure modes, which is expected for a signing/broadcast operation.

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 action and the ordering constraint, then the mechanics, then returns. The trailing 'Tip: call `earning_opportunities`' is promotional and only marginally relevant, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A two-step mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers prerequisite, parameter consistency, on-chain effect, and return values. Missing only fee behavior (feeRate default 'medium' is in schema) and error/reversion cases.

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%, so the 6 parameters are already documented. The description restates the 'must match commit step' constraint for three params, which is slightly useful but largely duplicates the schema's own text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (broadcast reveal transaction) and scopes it as 'STEP 2' of a named two-step child-inscription flow, naming the prerequisite tool `inscribe_child`. An agent can immediately distinguish it from `inscribe_reveal` (non-child) and `souldinals_reveal_soul`.

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?

Explicit sequencing: 'Call this AFTER the commit transaction from `inscribe_child` has confirmed,' plus the constraint that contentType, contentBase64 and parentInscriptionId must match the commit step. It names the alternative/predecessor tool and the condition that selects it.

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