erc8004__import_registration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotent behavior (re-import updates in place) and return value (canonical record with deterministic DID). It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but covers key behavioral traits beyond the minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and parameters. Second sentence adds idempotency and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, key params, idempotency, and return format. Missing details on metadata parameter and any prerequisites. Almost complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists four required parameters (chain_id, token_id, agent_uri, owner) but does not explain their semantics (e.g., chain_id format, token_id as ERC-721). The optional metadata parameter is omitted. Adds some context but not deep meaning.

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 'Import' and the resource 'ERC-8004 Identity Registry record', listing the key fields (chain_id, token_id, agentURI, owner). It distinguishes from sibling tools like erc8004__resolve_agent and erc8004__import_feedback by specifying the exact record type and operation.

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 implies usage for importing/updating identity registry records and mentions idempotency, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., erc8004__bind_identity, erc8004__import_feedback). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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