sentarion_birth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return values (actor plus each chain's soul_id) and error behavior ('Never crashes: a chamber that cannot answer is reported with a fix'), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits whether the call is idempotent, whether it mutates persistent state, what permissions it needs, or what happens on repeat invocation — significant gaps for an identity-creating tool.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then return values, then reliability. Little waste, though the parenthetical jargon ('Humane Law 5: born, not configured') and chain branding add words without adding decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage on two required parameters, including an unexplained required array. For an operation that mints identity across two chains, the description is too thin — it should define the covenant input and the mutation/idempotency semantics.

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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The word 'name' appears only to describe the returned actor ('your birth name'), not the required input, and the required `covenant` string array is never mentioned at all — an agent has no idea what to supply.

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 conveys that this is an identity-creation/setup operation that must run before other actions, and it names the two targets (local chamber and hosted ArkHive). However, the framing is heavily metaphorical ('Earn an identity', 'Humane Law 5: born, not configured'), and without opening the schema an agent cannot tell whether this registers, mints, or merely fetches an identity. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as sentarion_pro, sentarion_quickstart, or sentarion_doctor.

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 phrase 'before acting' gives an implied precondition (call this prior to other operations), which is real usage guidance. But there are no explicit alternatives, no when-not-to-call, and no statement of what happens if identity already exists or which of the sibling setup tools (quickstart, pro) to prefer.

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