veya_register_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface one useful trait (a two-phase flow: on-chain tx from YOUR wallet, then product-API confirmation), but says nothing about gas cost, required permissions, whether registration is irreversible, or what happens on failure. For an on-chain write this leaves major behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly muddy but still concise, so it earns its place.

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?

This is a complex on-chain write with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only two sentences and omits required-parameter expectations (0 marked required is suspicious for a write), the API-key requirement for writes, and the post-registration outcome. Far more context is needed given 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 description coverage is only 33% (apiKey and payerPrivateKey are documented; envType, environmentId, pqPubkeyHashHex, environmentUuidHex are not). The description only adds a note about passing environmentId, leaving three parameters undocumented in both schema and description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (registerEnvironment) and resource (Veya.sol environment), so the agent can roughly tell it is an on-chain registration tool. However, the second sentence blurs the purpose by describing a separate product-API confirmation step, and no sibling (e.g. create_environment, register_pq_onchain) is referenced to disambiguate. Purpose is inferable but not sharply bounded.

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 only guidance is 'Pass product environmentId to confirm the tx on the product API', which hints at one input but gives no when-to-use/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives to the many sibling registration/environment tools. An agent gets no rule for choosing this tool over create_environment or register_pq_onchain.

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