Sign Transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say whether out_file is overwritten if it exists, whether signing keys are sensitive material that must be handled carefully, or how the confirmation is returned. For a mutation tool touching key material this is a meaningful gap.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded, but the Args block duplicates the input schema line for line and the Returns line is generic filler. Roughly half the text earns nothing beyond what structured fields already provide.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry return semantics, and it only offers a vague 'Confirmation that transaction was signed.' It is minimally adequate — an agent knows the inputs and that a confirmation comes back — but omits overwrite behavior, error cases (bad key, mismatched body), and workflow ordering against assemble/submit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description simply restates the schema text verbatim ('Path to the transaction body file', etc.), adding no format, constraint, or mutually-exclusive semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Sign a transaction body with one or more signing keys.' An agent can tell this performs signing rather than building, submitting, or assembling. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like cardano_transaction_witness or cardano_transaction_assemble, which sit in the same workflow and could easily be confused.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus cardano_transaction_witness, cardano_transaction_assemble, or cardano_transaction_submit, nor on prerequisites (the tx body must already exist from cardano_transaction_build). The reader is left to infer the position of this step in the transaction pipeline.

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