agent_seed_mirror

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important prerequisites (ratified status) and conditional behavior (.sig verification), but does not clarify whether mirroring overwrites existing entries, what the response looks like, or how failures are reported. This is partial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each clause provides relevant detail. It avoids filler and clearly structures the slice options in a compact list.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. While the purpose, precondition, conditional behavior, and one parameter are described, the nature of 'mirror' (create vs. update vs. sync) and expected return values are left ambiguous. It is moderately complete but still has notable 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'slice' with enumerated values and a default, but leaves the required parameters app_id and agent_id entirely undefined. Given that only one of three parameters gets any explanation, the compensation is insufficient.

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 action ('Mirror a ratified home seed') and specific resource ('SOIL collection willow_agent_seeds'), with domain context (AS-5). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like store_put or store_update, which are generic storage operations.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires a ratified seed and specifies a conditional signature verification step. It also explains the 'slice' parameter options, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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