Create Harbor Intent

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds 'replay-safe recognition proof' context but does not elaborate on idempotency or other side effects beyond annotations.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds essential value without redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the core use case adequately, though it could explicitly mention the low-level nature and prerequisites more comprehensively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially explains two parameters ('body' and 'recognition_proof') in context but omits details on structure or constraints for the third parameter 'idempotency_key'.

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 clearly states the tool creates a Harbor Intent, distinguishes it from the sibling paybond_create_spend_intent, and specifies the prerequisite of a fully signed request body and proof.

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?

It explicitly says when to use (having signed intent body and proof) and when not to use (preferring the higher-level alternative), providing clear context for agent decision-making.

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