aureon_prepare_objective_registry

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two-phase nature (this tool only prepares signed calldata; the host wallet must broadcast), which is meaningful behavioral context. But it omits auth/permission requirements, idempotency, reuse/expiry of prepared calldata, and failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action ('Prepares wallet-signed calldata') is front-loaded before the follow-up step. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it never describes what the prepared calldata payload contains or how to consume it. It does cover the crucial two-step flow, but leaves gaps for a mutation-oriented prepare 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'objectiveId'. The description adds no format, constraint, or validity detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Prepares wallet-signed calldata') and resource ('register an objective on ObjectiveRegistry'), so the agent knows this is a prepare step, not the registration itself. It hints at the confirm sibling via 'then call confirm via SDK' but never names aureon_confirm_objective_registry 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?

It lays out the follow-up workflow (host wallet broadcasts the tx, then confirm via SDK), which is real usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. whether the objective must exist, or when to prefer this over other prepare tools).

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