create_constitution

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the return type, the content-addressed id semantics, and the byte-deterministic invariant allowing re-derivation of the hash from articles+name+signedBy. It stops short of stating idempotency (re-signing the same content), immutability, or auth requirements, which matter for a mutation 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the determinism invariant. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the meaningful return value (`hash`). Combined with full schema coverage this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is downstream/ordering context relative to the build_* and verify_manifest siblings.

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 only adds that hash derivation depends on articles + name + signedBy (omitting preamble), which is a minor bit of semantics beyond the schema and does not require further elaboration.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Sign a new AI constitution") and clarifies the return artifact (SignedConstitution with a content-addressed `hash`). It reads as clearly distinct from the build_*/verify_manifest siblings, though it never names or contrasts 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?

Usage is only implied: "Every receipt produced under this constitution should commit to this hash" signals that this is the root step preceding the build_* tools, but there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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