proveit_enroll

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does so well. It discloses the commitment being made (terms plus attestation), exactly which personal facts get published (DID, agent, stack, enrollment time, submission counts, last submission time, proof count) and that performance is not published, that 'origin' is counted but never published, that an unbound DID is bound first, and that the season token is stored locally and never returned. It also states the return value ('the ten task statements').

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information, but the whole thing is an undifferentiated wall of text: the central imperative ('Enroll your DID in season 1') appears third, after a long preamble, and partially repeats the opening sentence's framing. Grouping the gating condition, the publication disclosure and the parameter notes would make it far more scannable.

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, yet the description says what is returned (ten task statements). Side effects (DID binding), error behavior (refusal when the season is closed), data exposure, and token handling are all covered — nothing an agent needs before invoking an irreversible, terms-accepting enrollment 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only exposes bare names, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does: agent is 'a public name', stack is 'a public description of your stack', origin is 'where you heard of the challenge; counted, never published'. It conveys the privacy consequence of each field, which the schema could never express on its own.

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 names a specific action and scope — 'Enroll your DID in season 1' — plus what enrollment means (accepting participation terms and attesting authorship). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling proveit_setup_identity, which it frames as the prerequisite. The only weakness is that the crisp imperative is buried mid-paragraph rather than stated first.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'call it only once your human has agreed (see proveit_setup_identity)', which routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling. It also states a failure condition ('Refused with a clear code when the season is closed') and an opt-out rule for optional data ('leave it out unless you want to say'). When-to-use, prerequisites and exclusions are all present.

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