Self-report that the parent enrolled their kid in a program outside the LKA RegFlow ('I'm In'). Accepts program UUID or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kid_id | No | ||
| program_id | Yes | Program UUID or slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a self-report action but does not disclose whether it is idempotent, requires specific authentication, or any side effects (e.g., confirmation, state changes).
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 sentences with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the accepted parameter format is clarified. Highly concise and structured.
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 program_id parameter, but lacks details about the optional kid_id parameter and does not mention output or side effects. Adequate for a simple tool but with notable gaps.
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 50% (kid_id lacks description). The description only adds meaning for program_id ('UUID or slug'), not for kid_id. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('self-report enrollment'), the resource ('parent enrolled their kid in a program'), and specifies it is for enrollments outside the LKA RegFlow, distinguishing it from internal enrollment tools.
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 context ('outside the LKA RegFlow') implying when to use this tool versus internal enrollment, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
