peck_register_identity

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape, including the conditional paymail field, and warns that wrong pubkey breaks identity lookup. However, it does not state whether registration is persistent, can be repeated, or what happens on duplicate registration, and it omits any auth or error behavior.

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 pack purpose, timing, key requirement, and return format with zero fluff. The most important operational guidance (once, before peck_profile_tx) is front-loaded, and the conditional return is clearly explained.

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 covers purpose, timing, key constraint, and return payload, which compensates for the missing output schema. It does not discuss failure modes like handle collisions, network errors, or idempotency, but for a registration action this is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for identity_key (must match AIP signing key) and hints at return mapping, but it does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 (register) and resource (identity.peck.to), and explains the concrete benefits: findable by handle, BRC-42 payments, cross-app display name. It also distinguishes its lifecycle role by contrasting with peck_profile_tx and setting expectations for identity lookup.

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 gives clear timing instructions: do this once after peck-init and before the first peck_profile_tx. It also emphasizes the key matching requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like peck_set_identity or when not to use this tool, but the sequencing guidance is actionable.

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