peck_function_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful mechanics: the registration is a Bitcoin Schema post with type=function, broadcast and signed by the keychain-resident agent identity. This reveals mutation, on-chain public state, and auth identity. It does not mention transaction cost, irreversibility, or duplicate-name behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, each with a distinct job: stating purpose, establishing marketplace role and sibling relationships, and explaining the underlying on-chain mechanics. There is no filler, and the dense terms like 'Bitcoin Schema post' and 'type=function' are directly relevant.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the core flow and signing context but omits operational outcomes: what is returned on success, whether a duplicate name updates or replaces an existing registration, and cost/irreversibility implications. The schema covers parameters, but the missing return-value and idempotency guidance prevent full completeness.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well and sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond framing name/description/price as the listing content. It does not compensate for the undocumented agent_app field or elaborate on args_schema's format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Register a callable function on the BSV social graph') and clearly explains what the tool produces: a marketplace listing. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to peck_functions for discovery and peck_function_call for invocation. No ambiguity remains about what 'register' means here.

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 explicitly places the tool in a lifecycle: 'This IS your marketplace listing' tells an agent when to call it, and the next sentence routes discovery to peck_functions and calling to peck_function_call. It does not discuss exclusions or prerequisites such as needing an identity registered first, so it stops just short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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