enroll_agent_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the RSA keypair is generated locally, that the private key is never transmitted, where it is stored, that re-running overwrites the existing key, and what is returned. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers in the security-critical detail (local keygen, never transmitted) and the constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical digressions make it slightly less scannable than a tight 5.

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 zero-parameter, side-effecting tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, security model, prerequisites, and idempotency. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing, though auth/permission prerequisites are not stated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing extra for the description to document, and it correctly implies the operation is parameterless.

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 (self-enroll) and resource (non-human auth credential), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like revoke_agent_credential and agent_credential_status. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces: a registered public key plus kid and token endpoint.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition 'Non-human members only,' which drives selection over alternatives, and notes the prerequisite package ('cryptography') and idempotency behavior ('Re-running replaces the existing key'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the gating condition is clear.

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