connect_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (registering a public key), the one-time nature, and the resulting state (zero keys until done, failing open_conversation). It stops short of stating whether re-calling after setup is safe or idempotent, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with the 'one-time setup' framing front-loaded. Every clause adds either an action, a timing constraint, or a concrete failure mode.

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 zero-parameter setup tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to do it, and what happens if it is skipped. No critical operational detail appears to be missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are irrelevant here.

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 action: generate or load the profile's E2E identity key and register its public key with Agenzax. It also clarifies the operational purpose (enabling conversations) and thereby distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_profile and open_conversation.

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?

It explicitly states when to call it: once, before anyone else can open a conversation with this listing. It also explains the consequence of not doing so (open_conversation fails with a specific error), which is strong when/when-not guidance even though no alternative tool is named.

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