sign_release

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the mechanics: hashing happens locally, the signature binds name@version to the sha256 using the caller's key (kind 30422), and the record is written into a public log. 'Publish each version once' signals the non-idempotent, publicly visible side effect, which is exactly the context an agent needs before calling a write 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?

The trigger is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parameters, mechanism and expected result in a logical order. It is slightly over-packed in a single paragraph and repeats some schema content, but no sentence is wasted.

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 4-parameter signing tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, required inputs, the hashing/signing mechanism, the public-log consequence and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 restates each parameter (name_version format, path to the released file, optional source URL, type values) and adds the useful framing that the file's hash is bound to name_version, but it introduces no constraints or syntax beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — hashing a release file and signing name@version as sha256 with a key into a public log — and frames the situation ('when you publish a skill, MCP server or package you authored'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like issue_receipt or check_file, which handle receipts and verification rather than publishing a signed release.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition (publishing something you authored so others can verify it) and a usage constraint ('Publish each version once'). It does not, however, route to alternatives — e.g. whether to check_file or confirm_receipt beforehand, or what to do for an already-published version.

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