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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: registration triggers a human review request rather than immediate activation, and credentials are never passed through this call. That softens the annotated destructiveHint=true. However, it never explains the review outcome, timing, or what happens if review is rejected, and the 'idempotent request_id' phrasing sits in tension with idempotentHint=false.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. The telegraphic style ('Idempotent request_id') is efficient but slightly clipped for an agent parsing semantics.

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 destructive, 6-parameter registration tool with no output schema and 33% coverage, the description covers the review-flow outcome but omits the response shape, approval path, and the meaning of half the parameters. Adequate to start but not complete enough to predict the result.

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 33%, so the description should compensate more. It does constrain url (deployed HTTPS) and clarifies the auth flow ('credentials entered privately') and request_id reuse, but it says nothing about organization_id (personal vs org wallet), label, or the protocol enum, which remain locked in the schema.

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?

A specific verb+resource: registers a deployed HTTPS MCP server. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like beon_update_custom_tool or beon_remove_custom_tool, but it never positions itself against beon_test_custom_tool or beon_publish_custom_tools, which are the nearest neighbours in the workflow.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer from 'Returns a secure human review request' that registration is a pre-publication step, but nothing states prerequisites, ordering, or what to do if the server is already registered.

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