Notarize Bundle On-Chain

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: idempotency (returns existing attestation if already notarized), gas costs, permanence of the on-chain record even if the bundle is purged, and the signed action receipt returned. No contradictions with annotations; idempotentHint is consistent with the stated idempotent behavior.

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?

Though detailed, the description is well-structured with clear sections (PREREQUISITE, NOTE, Returns, Example prompts). Every sentence conveys necessary information for a high-stakes, gas-costly blockchain operation, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool involves an on-chain write with financial cost and permanent records, the description covers all essential context: when to use, prerequisites, cost implications, permanence, output structure, and example prompts. The output schema is also present, so the explicit return field listing is a bonus. This description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the bundle_id parameter with 100% coverage, including format, example, and status requirement. The description reinforces this by embedding the prerequisite ('Bundle status must be complete') and using the example in prompt suggestions, adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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's function: notarizing an evidence bundle on-chain by writing its SHA-256 manifest to the blockchain. It also differentiates from sibling tools like bundle.verify by emphasizing the on-chain, permanent timestamping use case.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you need an immutable on-chain timestamp') and when not to ('For quick integrity checks without on-chain cost, use bundle.verify instead'). It also specifies a prerequisite (bundle must be 'complete', check with bundle.get), giving clear operational guidance.

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