nostr_publish_metadata

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the mandatory two-step confirmation due to the destructive nature (overwrites public profile) and the requirement for kind 0 to be in the allowed kinds list. However, it does not specify whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge, nor does it describe the response format or potential errors.

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, using two sentences to state the purpose and key behavioral aspects. It front-loads the action and uses bold for emphasis. It is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given that the tool has 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential behavioral constraints but omits important details such as update semantics (merge vs. replace) and return value. The user must infer behavior from external knowledge.

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?

Input schema covers all 8 parameters with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that this tool publishes a kind:0 profile metadata event, using specific verb-resource phrasing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nostr_publish_text_note and nostr_publish_event by focusing on profile metadata and noting that it overwrites the user's public profile.

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 when to use this tool (for profile metadata) and provides important context: it always requires two-step confirmation and needs opt-in via NOSTR_ALLOWED_KINDS. However, it does not explicitly state when alternatives should be used, so it lacks full guidance for tool selection.

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