Register an existing Core asset in the Metaplex Agent Registry

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

Even though annotations already capture read-only/write/destructive/idempotent traits, the description adds substantial behavioral context: exact side effects (writing the EIP-8004 document, creating the identity PDA), cost, one-time registration semantics, and the already_registered error/handling behavior. It strikes at the right level beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, then covers prerequisites, costs, idempotence, preview behavior, and alternatives. Every clause adds meaningful information without fluff.

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?

Despite having 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool writes, when it is usable, what happens in failure, what confirm controls, what it costs, and what related tools do. The full suite of parameters is sufficiently documented through the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 each parameter has field-level descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context around confirm:true previews and authority requirements for collection-bound assets, but it does not materially supplement the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies an exact verb and resource: 'Give an ALREADY-MINTED Metaplex Core asset its Agent Identity.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing new-agent work to mint_onchain_agent or prepare_agent_mint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (registering existing assets), what prerequisites are required (asset authority or collection authority), and what not to use it for ('To mint a NEW agent...'). It also includes hands-on operational guidance about confirm:true and confirmation requirements.

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