human_attestation_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the attester is the calling identity, that no attested_by parameter exists to prevent forgery, and that by_human is derived from server-side state (env or OAuth binding), not app_id. This is critical behavioral/security context beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences with front-loaded purpose; the technical identity constraints earn their place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 6 params and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the unusual by_human and attestation identity behavior, which is the main complexity. It is somewhat incomplete on parameter semantics and alternative-tool guidance, but adequate for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but description enumerates valid subject_type values and status values, adding meaning beyond the schema defaults. However, it doesn't explain app_id, subject_id, statement, or evidence_ref semantics, leaving required parameters under-specified. Only partial compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

States it creates a durable attestation/rejection/change-request record for a subject, with specific subject types and statuses. This clearly distinguishes from sibling human_attestation_list and other tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies the tool is for creating attestation records, but it doesn't mention using human_attestation_list to read or human_required_* for human review workflows. Clear context exists but no exclusions or alternatives.

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