setupTestKeypair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It openly states the side effect of writing .nostr-keys.json, the permanence of a keypair, the requirement for confirm:true, and the guardrail against overwriting real credentials without force:true. This is thorough and leaves no critical behavior hidden.

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: main purpose, user-consent requirement, and overwrite protection. The use of caps for 'ASK THE USER FIRST' and the clear conditional statements keep it tight and scannable with zero fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file write, identity implications) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the side effect, the safety requirements, and the auto-load behavior, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the parameters to the user-consent flow: confirm must be true after explicit agreement, and force only applies when the user asked for a fresh test identity. This enriches the meaning 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: 'Create a disposable TEST Nostr keypair and write .nostr-keys.json'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like loadCredentials or getPublicKey by emphasizing the disposable test nature and the auto-load side effect.

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 when/when-not guidance: 'ASK THE USER FIRST' and 'Never overwrites real credentials unless force:true'. It does not name alternative tools, but the consent flow and force behavior are clearly specified, which is stronger than merely implying context.

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