ack_generate_keypair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool generates a new keypair and returns the private key (JWK), which implies a security-sensitive operation. However, it doesn't disclose whether the key is persisted, whether it's ephemeral, or any security considerations (e.g., private key handling). The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema (outputs, usage), but lacks details about side effects or security implications.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the outputs. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides actionable guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return values (JWK, DID, curve) and how to use them with sibling tools. The only gap is the lack of detail about the security implications of handling a private key, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, this is a minor omission.

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%: the only parameter 'curve' has a description ('Cryptographic curve to use') and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds context about the default curve (secp256k1) and how the output is used, but doesn't add new meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating a new cryptographic keypair with a did:key DID. It specifies the exact outputs (JWK private key, DID, curve) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create credentials, sign, verify, or create other DID types. The verb 'Generate' plus the resource 'cryptographic keypair with a did:key DID' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Pass the jwk value to any tool that requires signerJwk. The DID can be used as signerDid, subjectDid, controllerDid, etc.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (when a signerJwk or DID is needed) and how the outputs feed into other tools. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that consume these values rather than generate them.

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