peck_profile_tx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the transaction is broadcast, signed by the MCP's keychain-resident agent identity, and that only the most recent profile tx is canonical. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add more about irreversibility or fees, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then covers the key constraint, canonical behavior, and signing identity. 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?

For a write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the constraint, the canonical behavior, and the signing identity. It could mention what the response contains or whether the transaction is irreversible, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds the constraint that at least one must be provided and clarifies the default agent identity, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Build + broadcast'), the resource ('MAP profile transaction'), and the specific fields it sets (display_name, avatar, bio, paymail) on the BSV social graph. It also distinguishes itself from read-only profile tools like peck_profile by emphasizing the write/broadcast action.

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 explains that all fields are optional but at least one must be provided, which is a key usage constraint. It also mentions the agent identity requirement and points to peck_fleet_spawn for creating new identities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling write tools like peck_post_tx or peck_set_identity, so the when-to-use guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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