Create Transaction Witness

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile does not need to be repeated. The description adds a return-value note ('Confirmation that witness was created') which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether out_file is overwritten or what permissions the signing key requires.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the whole definition is short. The Args block is redundant with the schema's own descriptions, but the cost is small and the ordering is sensible.

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 3-parameter file-writing tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers inputs and the return shape but omits the one behavior an agent would want: whether an existing out_file is replaced. Adequate but with a clear remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args block repeats those schema descriptions verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or path-resolution meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries all parameter semantics.

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: 'Create a witness for a transaction body using a signing key.' This is distinguishable from the query siblings and roughly from cardano_transaction_sign, but the description never explains how a 'witness' differs from a 'signature' or from cardano_transaction_assemble, so the sharpest sibling distinction is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The nearest siblings (cardano_transaction_sign, cardano_transaction_assemble) are a natural source of confusion in the Cardano CLI, and the description does nothing to route the agent between them.

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