peck_tag_tx

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool builds a MAP SET transaction and broadcasts it signed by the MCP's keychain-resident agent identity, indicating an authenticated on-chain write. However, it omits irreversibility, fee/balance implications, and behavior on invalid target txids.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and its data shape; the second provides the signing/broadcast context. Every phrase contributes information.

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 adequately explains what the tool does and its authentication model, and the schema covers the required parameters. However, with no output schema and no mention of the broadcast result, error behavior, fees, or irreversibility, an agent cannot fully predict the consequences of invoking an on-chain write.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful structure by describing the MAP SET layout and the optional category/lang/tone ordering, and it ties tags to a CSV format. Still, agent_app and the exact constraints of lang, tone, and category are left to inference.

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 names a specific action ('retroactive-tag transaction') and resource ('target_txid of the post being tagged'), and the MAP SET construction makes the purpose unambiguous. Although no sibling is named, none of the sibling tools overlap with tagging, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many peck_*_tx siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative tool references. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'tag' and the target_txid parameter.

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