make_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that the result always contains signature and verification instructions, explains synchronous nature, and details witness followup behavior. It lacks error handling or security notes but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then witness workflow. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the second paragraph could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail all return values. It mentions signature, verification instructions, and witness followup fields. Together with sibling context, it provides sufficient completeness for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'witness' parameter (behavior, result format, chaining), but for 'content' it only says 'Sign content' without specifying format (e.g., plain text, JSON), leaving ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Sign content with your private key, creating a verifiable claim.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'verify_claim' or 'encode_signed' by focusing on claim creation.

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 the workflow for witness mode, including how to chain with the async 'witness_seal_timestamp' tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative scenarios, though the witness guidance is helpful.

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