attest-deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions default schema UIDs but omits side effects like wallet requirements, gas costs, or blockchain writes. The tool's write nature is implied but not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with a second sentence adding key detail about default schema UIDs. Every word is necessary; no 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?

With 14 parameters, 7 required, and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks workflow context (e.g., prerequisite wallet setup, transaction lifecycle) and does not explain the purpose of deployment attestation or RAS.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it repeats the default schema UID behavior already documented in the schemaUID property. Parameters like walletData and walletPassword are not explained.

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 deployment attestation on Rootstock using RAS, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling attestation tools like issue-attestation and attest-transfer by focusing on deployment context.

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 implies usage for creating deployment attestations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like attest-verification or import-related tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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