create_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses key behavioral traits: refusal when the learner name is not registered, refusal on duplicate active pair, success makes the pair current, real pair precedence over demo, and required sequential steps (consent conversation before pairing). No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense paragraph, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed. It uses emojis and section markers for readability, earning a 4.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites (name registration), pre-steps (informed consent), post-steps (read orientation recipe), edge cases (duplicate pair), and current-relationship semantics. It fully equips an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema for critical parameters: learner_display_name has a sovereignty red line, agent_provider/model/display_name are self-reported by the agent, and idempotency_key is implied for retry safety via 'same key replay'. This extra semantic weight justifies a 4.

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: to establish a new learner-agent relationship (pair). It specifies the exact resource and action, and distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'only proper door to real enrollment' and referencing when get_context reports No active pair.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use this tool when get_context reports no active pair, and follow the bootstrap recipe's no-pair branch. It also states when not to use (if an active pair already exists, the tool refuses and points to the existing relationship), giving clear context and alternatives.

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