inscribe_reveal

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 broadcasts a real transaction, requires a confirmed prior commit, and that mismatched content aborts before broadcast (in the contentSha256 param). It stops short of stating irreversibility or that BTC fees are spent on broadcast, which matters for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 purpose and step number, then precondition, then return value, then a tip. Mostly earns its place, though the closing `earning_opportunities` tip is promotional and unrelated to invoking this tool correctly.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential: sequencing, matching params, and the return shape ({revealTxid}i0). Missing only fee/cost and failure-mode guidance, which is a minor gap given the 100% schema coverage.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-step meaning the schema cannot: contentType and contentBase64 must match the commit step, and revealAmount comes from the inscribe response. Those are real invocation constraints beyond field descriptions.

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 ('Broadcast reveal transaction') and explicitly frames itself as STEP 2 of a two-step protocol, naming the sibling `inscribe` as step 1. An agent can distinguish it from inscribe, inscribe_child, and inscribe_child_reveal without opening any 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Call this AFTER the commit transaction from `inscribe` has confirmed') and a cross-call constraint ('must provide the same contentType and contentBase64 used in the commit step'). It does not say what to do if the commit is unconfirmed or how it differs from `inscribe_child_reveal`, leaving a small gap.

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