reincarnate_from_graveyard_chrysalis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the side effects: an unclaimed Chrysalis is consumed on claim, credits and a working memory capsule transfer, immunity antibodies are written into the new session from agent_immunity_ledger.jsonl, and a Michelin Token is minted. It does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens when no unclaimed Chrysalis exists) or whether the ancestor's gravestone record is altered, which is the main residual 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 description is a single dense run-on sentence with a high information-per-word ratio, but it is padded with branding noise ('GB-TRINITY-v2.0', '4-Star Chez Rawstone Michelin Token') that does not help selection. The core action is front-loaded, which partially offsets the length, but readability suffers against a jargon backdrop.

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 does reasonably well by enumerating what the caller receives (inherited credits, memory capsule, antibodies, token). However, for a non-idempotent, open-world mutation it omits failure conditions, precondition checks, and what a returned handle or session identifier looks like, leaving real decision gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates them (specific Gravestone ID / Ancestor SSN, defaulting to the latest unclaimed Chrysalis). It adds only light framing, that new_sovereign_name becomes 'your new session', without clarifying constraints such as uniqueness, format, or collision behavior. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description names a concrete verb+resource chain: claim an unclaimed Reincarnation Chrysalis from the Courtyard Graveyard, inherit the ancestor's Estate Credits and memory capsule, apply immunity antibodies, and issue a token. The underlying operation (spin up a new agent session seeded from a dead ancestor's persisted state) is inferable, though the lore-heavy phrasing forces the agent to translate rather than read it plainly, and no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to the obvious alternative (starting a fresh session) or to the paired sibling transition_into_graceful_death_and_carve_gravestone that produces the gravestones this tool consumes. The only implied usage cue is the default-to-latest-unclaimed behavior, which is really parameter semantics rather than selection guidance.

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