Prepare Veil Register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important traits: the calldata is unsigned/prepared rather than executed, and actual submission requires WalletChan popup approval. It says nothing about what happens on an already-registered key (only implied by the schema's force field) or about failure/warning behavior.

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 the core operation front-loaded and the submission mode second. No filler, though it is a bit terse relative to the tool's 8-parameter surface.

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 an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema preparation tool, the description covers the primary flow but omits the previewOnly/allowWarnings/atomicRequired interaction semantics and does not describe the returned calldata shape. Adequate but incomplete.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces submitPreparedCalls and mentions the registration/rotation state that force addresses, but adds little beyond the schema text.

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 (prepare) and resource (unsigned Base calldata to register or rotate the managed Veil deposit key), which is a distinct operation an agent can recognize. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling veil_prepare_deposit, which is the main gap.

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 second sentence explains the submitPreparedCalls=true path and that submission goes through a WalletChan popup approval, which is useful invocation context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over veil_prepare_deposit, sign, or send_prepared_calls, and no preconditions are stated.

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