ep_add_presentation

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully cover behaviors. Lacks details on side effects (e.g., handshake state changes), permissions, idempotency, or blocking behavior. Only mentions disclosure modes.

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 purpose, no wasted words. Could mention prerequisites or output briefly, but remains efficient.

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 6 params, nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose but lacks return values, error scenarios, and behavioral traits. Incomplete for a moderately complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds general context (e.g., disclosure modes) but no specifics beyond schema, meeting baseline 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?

Description clearly states action (Add), resource (identity presentation to an active handshake), and context (evaluation against policy). Mentions three disclosure modes, distinguishing from sibling tools like ep_verify_handshake.

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?

Implies usage during active handshakes but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Could mention prerequisites like initiate_handshake or suggest verifying after presentation.

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