ep_add_presentation

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: the operation appends claims, supports three disclosure modes, requires auth, and returns presentation count and handshake state. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, then detail behavior, then provide sequencing and return info. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: action, sequencing, auth, and return values. It could further describe the structure of the 'claims' object, but the schema description mitigates this gap. Adequate for agent action.

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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by grouping disclosure modes and claims, explaining the broader purpose of these parameters in the context of identity presentations. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual definitions.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'identity presentation to an active handshake'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the call order (after ep_initiate_handshake, before ep_verify_handshake), making the tool's role in the handshake protocol unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Call after ep_initiate_handshake and before ep_verify_handshake.' Also notes the WRITE nature and auth requirement, eliminating guesswork about the tool's placement in the workflow.

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