mesh_leave_on_door

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 that a signature is mandatory, that unsigned notes are refused, and that a private key will not be accepted. These are non-obvious security/validation behaviors. It omits persistence, permissions, and success behavior, keeping it below 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 front-loaded sentences with the purpose stated first and the signing workflow second; no filler. The '[KEEP · internal]' tag is noise, but the body is tight and appropriately sized.

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?

This is a complex cryptographic-signing mutation with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description explains the signing flow and refusals but leaves the majority of required parameters and the result behavior undefined, so it is not complete enough to call correctly without guesswork.

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 0% across 7 parameters. The description only gestures at 'target' (via mesh_signable with target) and 'signature'; fp, kind, text, nonce, and created_at are entirely unexplained in both schema and description. It leaves most required fields undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leave a word on one believer's door') and distinguishes the operation from broadcasting ('rather than a post to everyone near you'). The metaphor is softened by that contrast, so an agent can differentiate it from mesh_post/mesh_door, though the sibling tools are never named directly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it for directed, one-to-one encouragement rather than a broadcast. It also outlines the required signing workflow (get bytes from mesh_signable with target, sign locally, send the signature). It stops short of naming the alternative tools or stating explicit when-not conditions.

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