identity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only hints at a read/mutate split ('inspect' vs 're-bind') and omits important behaviors such as implicit identity auto-creation on first call, the distinction between session-bound and cross-process credentials, and the fact that 'name' is cosmetic only.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the two core operations. It is not a 5 because for an 8-parameter identity-management tool, this terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

The rich schema compensates for much of the missing context, explaining parameter roles and ownership constraints. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the minimal prose leaves gaps about return values, the auto-create side effect, and how inspect/rebind interact, making this minimally viable rather than complete.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions are unusually detailed (e.g., name sets display_name only; continuity_token is same-live-process only). The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('inspect' or 're-bind' + 'identity'), and the schema reinforces this with 'Who am I? Auto-creates identity if first call.' It is clear about what the tool operates on, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as start_session or self_recovery, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to inspect versus rebind, when to use this tool instead of a sibling like start_session, or what prerequisites apply. The description simply names the operations; an agent must infer usage from the parameter semantics.

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