schnorr_sign_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the blind-signing hazard, the confirmBlindSign gate, the server-side env flag that must be enabled, and the wallet-unlock requirement. It also states the return payload (64-byte signature plus x-only pubkey), which is not otherwise documented.

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, then the warning, then the return contract — the ordering is correct and nearly every sentence earns its place. The appended 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional content and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description specifies the return value and the exact length of the signature, plus the state prerequisites (unlocked wallet, config flag). An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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; the description adds real meaning by framing confirmBlindSign as a review-then-confirm gate rather than a bare boolean, and by tying digest to the BIP-341 sighash case. auxRand is left entirely to the schema, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 precise verb+resource+scheme: sign a raw 32-byte digest with Schnorr BIP-340 using the wallet's Taproot key. This immediately separates it from message-signing siblings (btc_sign_message, sip018_sign) and from schnorr_verify_digest.

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 use cases (Taproot script-path spending, multisig coordination, BIP-341 sighash) and a hard prerequisite (unlocked wallet, AIBTC_ALLOW_BLIND_SIGN=true). It does not name the sibling alternative for cases better served by a message-signing tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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