peck_friend_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains that the tool 'Builds a MAP type=friend tx' and that the result is 'Broadcast signed by MCP's keychain-resident agent identity,' making the write/broadcast behavior explicit. It also reveals the one-sided nature of friends. It does not mention fees or likely return values, but the central side-effecting behavior is disclosed.

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 convey the purpose, mechanism, optional parameter, and a key semantic caveat without waste. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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 is adequate for invoking the tool: it gives the target, the transaction type, the signing identity, and the one-sided semantics. However, there is no output schema and no description of what a successful call returns (e.g., txid or confirmation), nor any mention of fees or failure behavior, which is a notable gap for a broadcast transaction 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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the role of target_bap_id and the optional pubkey hint but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema gives. The one uncovered parameter, agent_app, is not explained in the description either, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap.

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: 'Friend another identity on the BSV social graph' and identifies the exact artifact ('MAP type=friend tx'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like peck_unfriend_tx or peck_follow_tx, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 conveys usage context by explaining that friends are one-sided and that mutual friendship requires both parties to issue their own friend tx. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the tool name and sibling set.

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