Get Started with ~alter

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond those by clarifying that this call requires no authentication, is free at L0, and only returns orientation information rather than performing registration. No contradictions with the annotations.

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 content is front-loaded with 'Start here,' but the description is a dense, run-on chain of semicolon-separated clauses that covers many topics in one paragraph. There is redundancy around free/keyless/no-authentication, and the structure could be improved with bullets or shorter sentences without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the call returns: identity infrastructure definition, pre-key callable tools, pricing/consent path. It also provides the registration flow and cost model, which is substantial context. It does not describe an exact response format, but for a parameterless onboarding tool this is adequate.

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 has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific guidance because there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies this as the onboarding entry point for ~alter: 'Start here' plus an explicit list of what the call returns (identity infrastructure explanation, callable tools before holding a key, pricing model, consent path). It distinguishes itself from the registration siblings by naming register_autonomous_challenge and register_autonomous as follow-up calls rather than the purpose of this one.

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?

'Start here' is a strong when-to-use signal, and the description makes the context clear: use this before holding a ~alter key, since it returns the tools callable before a key and explains how to self-register. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other onboarding-like siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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