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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not explicitly destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful domain behavior, such as how programs cut off shots by weight or time and that a machine can mix both program types, but it does not describe side effects like overwriting an existing program or validation failures.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional program-type logic is explained efficiently.

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 registration tool with an output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers the essential distinctions and the core conditional parameter logic. It does not address every edge case, such as whether registering an existing program_number replaces it, but the provided information is sufficient for most correct invocations.

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 71%, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds valuable cross-parameter meaning by linking program_type 'volumetric' to target_volume_g and 'timed' to target_time_s, which helps prevent incorrect combinations. It does not add much about volume_source, but the schema handles that.

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 and resource: 'Register a programmed shot button on a machine,' and clarifies the two program types ('volumetric' and 'timed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling registration tools like register_machine, register_scale, or register_coffee.

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 for when to use the tool: when registering a shot program on a machine, and it explains the two modes supported. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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