veya_register_pq_onchain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that this is a gas-paying on-chain write ('from YOUR wallet'), but does not disclose irreversibility, gas cost, API-key auth requirements, failure modes, or what state is created. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the identity generation, the on-chain target, and the wallet source without padding. Efficient, though it compresses several distinct steps into one clause at the cost of clarity about sequencing.

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?

A multi-step on-chain mutation with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented envType parameter, and zero required parameters. The description should at minimum explain envType, gas/auth implications, and whether the identity is persisted on-chain, none of which it covers.

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 only 67%: apiKey and payerPrivateKey are described in the schema, but envType has no description anywhere. The description's 'environment' and 'from YOUR wallet' loosely gesture at envType and payerPrivateKey but add no format, valid-range, or default semantics beyond the schema, leaving envType fully undocumented.

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 compound action: generate an ML-DSA identity, then register environment + commitment on Veya.sol. The 'on Veya.sol' and 'from YOUR wallet' qualifiers distinguish it from pure-offchain siblings like veya_pq_keygen and veya_register_environment, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is the on-chain path versus the offchain veya_pq_keygen / veya_register_environment / veya_store_commitment siblings, and no prerequisites or sequencing (e.g. does an environment need to exist first?) are stated.

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