provision_signer

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden and covers key behavioral traits: security (private keys never leave KMS), cost ($0.04/day rental plus per-call fee), and credit requirement ($1.20 at creation). It also notes non-custodial nature. However, it does not mention side effects like billing start or immediate usability.

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 concise with a few sentences covering main action, cost, credit requirement, and security. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Efficient overall.

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 lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema) and how to use the provisioned signer (e.g., signer ID or address). It does not mention related tools like 'get_signer' for subsequent operations. For a provisioning tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds cost context to the 'chain' parameter (already in schema) and mentions 'cash credit at creation' but adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool provisions an AWS KMS-backed Ethereum signer for signing smart-contract write transactions. It uses a specific verb ('Provision') and resource ('Ethereum signer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_signer' or 'list_signers'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need a signer for write transactions) and includes important prerequisites like cost and credit requirements. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the cost details give sufficient guidance for decision-making.

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