owp_sign_payload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure (dict with signature_alg, signer_key_id, digest, and signature fields) and directs to owp_list_domains for valid object types. However, it lacks details on error handling, canonicalization behavior, key format validation, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the main action in the first sentence, then using an Args/Returns layout for clarity. Every sentence adds necessary information; no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the essential aspects for a signing tool: inputs, prerequisite domain listing, and return fields. It is reasonably complete given that an output schema exists (though not shown). However, it does not elaborate on the 'canonical' requirement or potential errors, leaving minor gaps in fully guiding usage.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: object_type (from allowed list), payload (JSON string), and private_key_hex (Ed25519 key). This is essential context that the schema lacks, adding significant meaning to the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Sign') and resource ('canonical OpenWorkProof payload with an Ed25519 private key'). It differentiates from siblings like owp_verify_signature or owp_compute_digest by focusing on the signing action, and references owp_list_domains for the object_type domain list, further clarifying its scope.

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?

The description gives clear context on prerequisites: object_type must come from the allowed domains listed by owp_list_domains, and the private key must be a hex string. It implies when to use (when needing to sign a payload) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though the self-explanatory purpose makes exclusions unnecessary.

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