aureon_confirm_objective_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the backend effect (verifies the receipt on chain, stores the registry link), which tells the agent this is a state-mutating confirmation. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency (safe to call twice?), and behavior when the receipt is not found or is still pending.

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?

Three short sentences with the precondition front-loaded and zero padding. 'Pass the transaction hash' is mildly redundant with the schema, but nothing else 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 write/confirmation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and the server-side effect but leaves gaps on authorization, retry/idempotency, and failure handling. Adequate to invoke correctly, not complete for an agent reasoning about consequences.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-related content is 'Pass the transaction hash,' which restates the schema and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (confirms) and resource (on-chain ObjectiveRegistry registration), and situates it in a workflow by tying it to the prepare tx the host wallet broadcast. An agent can separate it from the prepare/get siblings, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 clear usage context: call this after the host wallet has broadcast the prepare transaction. The precondition is explicit, but there is no when-not guidance (e.g. what to do if no transaction was broadcast, or how this differs from registry_status/get_objective_registry).

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