noticer_initialize_local

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no trust-on-first-use, returns status and never secrets, optionally discovers an already installed Link CLI only after consent, and an explicit threat-model caveat that the key and encrypted records share one OS-user boundary. The 'no server contact' claim is consistent with openWorldHint=false, and the consent gate explains the destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=true profile.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and precondition, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (what is created, what is returned, what is excluded, what the limits are). It is dense but occasionally packs multiple distinct facts into one long clause chain, which slightly slows scanning.

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?

Output schema exists and the description still usefully notes that setup status is returned and secrets never are, plus the threat-model boundary -- enough for an agent to call this correctly. The only remaining gap is that the required owner_authorized parameter's semantics are inferred rather than stated.

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 carry the load; it does explain enable_existing_link as an opt-in discovery of an already installed trusted Link CLI gated on consent. owner_authorized is only implied by the 'explicitly consents' precondition rather than described as a required authorization flag, leaving a small 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?

States a specific verb and resource -- set up local private custody -- and immediately enumerates what that concretely creates (owner-only POSIX state/config and a random custody key pinned to a canonical origin). The explicit negative list ('does not enroll, contact a server, pay, install software or sign in') sharply separates it from the commercial/enrollment/payment siblings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (owner has chosen Noticer and explicitly consented to local setup) and a clear set of when-not-to-use cases via the negation list. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling tools (noticer_enroll_commerce, noticer_pay_with_existing_link) that a reader must infer from the negated verbs.

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