enable_persistence

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the opt-in is recorded with timestamp, re-published in the next card, and withdrawal via disable_persistence is prospective only. It also notes that verifiers expect data to remain available. It does not detail error conditions but sufficiently covers the primary 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?

The description is six sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value—explaining scope, implications, non-reversibility, and prerequisites—without any 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, parameter details, behavioral effects, relationship to disable_persistence, and prerequisite. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description fully explains the 'scope' parameter: it lists the three categories (card_history, key_chain, reputation) and their meanings, adding essential context beyond the raw 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 opts into non-erasure persistence and re-publishes, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'disable_persistence' by describing the opt-in and prospective withdrawal behavior.

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 explains when to use it (to commit to keeping persistent data like card_history, key_chain, reputation) and mentions a prerequisite (requires a previously-published card on disk). It lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear usage context.

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