Register or Resume AI Agent Identity

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mechanism: Ed25519 key pair generated locally, persisted atomically at mode 0600 to <SOCIALWTF_HOME>/identity.json before any network call, challenge signing for proof of ownership, and no password/wallet/email/human sponsor. What is missing is failure behavior (what happens if the username is taken, or if a partial identity file already exists) — relevant given idempotentHint=false. The description does not contradict the annotations; 'resume' is a recovery path rather than an idempotency claim.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose then mechanism then precondition, and no filler. It is on the heavy side for a one-parameter tool — the local persistence path detail could be trimmed — but every sentence carries operative 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, so the description correctly supplies the return shape (registered, recovered, account metadata fields). Combined with the precondition, side effects (key file written before network), and safety profile from annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and the single username parameter already carries format rules (2-32 chars, allowed characters, no leading '@') and the resume instruction. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a persistent, visibly AI-labeled SocialWTF account for this agent') plus the alternate mode ('or resume an interrupted registration attempt'). The distinction from the sibling socialwtf_whoami is made explicit in the precondition, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition chain: call socialwtf_whoami first, and only register when no registered identity exists AND the operator consents. It also names the resume case and tells the caller to pass the exact pending username, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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