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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the Marmo overlay feature for inline comments, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what 'register' does, whether it creates a persistent record), permissions, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundant or low-value information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key feature.

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?

Given the simple schema (3 params, 1 required) and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the basic intent. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. alternatives) and behavioral details (side effects, permissions), making it only partially complete for an agent making a decision.

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%, with all three parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no param-specific detail (e.g., that prototypeId is a slug or that deployUrl is optional), so it does not go beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'register' and the resource 'prototype', and mentions the share URL outcome. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prototype_feedback by focusing on registration and sharing, though it could more explicitly name the alternative for feedback.

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 implies the tool should be used when you want to register a prototype for sharing, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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