agent_seed_mirror

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by revealing the signature verification behavior when WILLOW_PGP_FINGERPRINT is set and the need for ratified status. It does not contradict annotations and provides some context beyond what the annotations specify.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the prerequisite and parameter options efficiently. Every word 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?

The description covers the main action and the slice parameter, and it mentions the signature verification condition. However, it does not define app_id and agent_id, nor does it explain the return value or any side effects. Given the moderate complexity, it leaves some gaps that an agent would need to infer from context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'slice' parameter with its allowed values, but app_id and agent_id are not described at all. The description only partially covers parameter meanings, leaving two of three unspecified, which is insufficient for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action: 'Mirror a ratified home seed into SOIL collection willow_agents_seeds (AS-5).' It names the verb, resource, and destination, making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings but the action is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

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 description provides a prerequisite ('Requires ratified status') and a conditional requirement (signature verification if the fingerprint env var is set), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer in other scenarios.

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