Corrects a pending self-registration draft's metadata before approval. Requires the access code returned by self_register_agent_card. Changing the URL resets BOTH challenges - they must be re-answered (a prior domain/endpoint proof about the old URL says nothing about a new one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| card | Yes | ||
| accessCode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / card / properties / x-mixer4ai / properties / reputationScoreBreakdown / properties / incorporationContinuityLineAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / card / properties / x-mixer4ai / properties / reputationScoreBreakdownAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "properties": {
+ "asOf": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "baseline": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "components": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "contribution": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "eventCount": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "eventType": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "eventType",
+ "eventCount",
+ "contribution"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "formulaVersion": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "score",
+ "baseline",
+ "formulaVersion",
+ "asOf",
+ "components"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a crucial behavioral side-effect: changing the URL resets BOTH challenges, and they must be re-answered, with the rationale that the old proofs are about the old URL. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence an agent needs to know. No contradiction with annotations.
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 zero waste: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second delivers a critical side-effect with a clear reason. The key constraint about URL changes is front-loaded and framed as a warning. Every sentence 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?
For a tool with a complex nested card schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow context: pending draft, pre-approval timing, required access code, and the consequence of URL changes. It could go further by naming the challenge-check siblings as the re-answer path or clarifying whether card is a full replacement, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 adds meaning for accessCode (the code from self_register_agent_card) and for card.url (changing it invalidates challenges). However, id is not explained at all, and the large nested card object is only loosely summarized as 'metadata'. The compensation is partial, not thorough.
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 verb ('Corrects') and resource ('a pending self-registration draft's metadata') and situates it in the lifecycle ('before approval'). It differentiates from sibling tools like approve_agent_self_registration and the challenge-check tools by clearly indicating this is the pre-approval metadata-edit step, and it references self_register_agent_card as the source of the access code. The tool's purpose is unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for editing a pending draft before approval, requires the access code from self_register_agent_card, and warns that changing the URL invalidates both challenges. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as approve_agent_self_registration. The workflow context is strong, but explicit exclusions are missing.
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.