legion_inscribe_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so: it discloses that this spends native L1 BTC from the caller's UTXOs (not sBTC), that the spend is refused without confirmMainnetSpend, that non-mainnet links would 404, and that it pre-flights size/fees/ownership/funding before signing. It also flags asynchronous return behavior rather than implying a completed inscription.

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 one-line purpose and step marker, then ordered by risk (real BTC, confirmation flag), then mechanics (parent, pre-flight, dryRun), then next step. Sentences are dense and each carries either a constraint or a consequence; the trailing earning_opportunities tip is the only mild extraneous content.

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 a 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool this is close to sufficient: cost, authorization, failure modes, and follow-up are all covered. The remaining gap is what the call actually hands back (the commit txid/inscription id needed to drive the reveal) — it only says it returns without waiting.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the field docs: the cost of omitting confirmMainnetSpend, what dryRun prices, and the serialization constraint that children of one parent must be inscribed one at a time. It leaves feeRate and allowNonMainnet to the schema rather than elaborating further.

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 ('Inscribe a news piece to a Bitcoin ordinal as markdown') and pins its position in the flow as 'STEP 1, the commit', which cleanly separates it from the sibling legion_inscribe_reveal. It also names the exact content type and title handling, so the agent knows precisely what artifact it produces.

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 concrete preconditions (unlocked managed wallet with funded UTXOs), the sequencing rule ('After the commit confirms, call legion_inscribe_reveal'), and a safe-path instruction for dryRun. It does not route against the generic ordinal siblings such as inscribe/inscribe_child or estimate_inscription_fee, so the differentiation is context-derived rather than explicit.

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