agent_create_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: it is off by default, gated behind an env var, and signs as the local credential-store identity. It still omits what publishing returns (e.g., an attestation ID) and whether the claim is broadcast or merely stored, so it is strong but not complete.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the gating condition. Each sentence carries distinct information (purpose, gate, identity semantics) with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two highest-risk facts an agent needs: it is disabled by default and it acts as the stored identity. The main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the return value or confirmation, which a caller would otherwise have to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including claim_type values and the nested claim_data fields. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: 'Publish a public claim about internet censorship under your identity.' This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like agent_query_attestations and agent_get_attestation. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not explicitly sibling-differentiating.

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?

It gives an operational precondition ('refused unless the human owner set VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_OPEN_WRITES=1'), which effectively tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it offers no guidance on when to create an attestation versus corroborating (agent_corroborate) or querying existing ones, leaving the core use decision implied.

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