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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose real constraints: a LIVE token is required, reg tokens are refused, and the specific error code 'registration_token_insufficient' is named. It stops short of describing reversibility guarantees, side effects on existing jobs, or the response shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with a bolded 'When to use' header and two dense sentences with no filler; the auth caveat and error code both earn their place. The 'see skill.md' deferral and M1/M2.5 jargon are the only minor friction.

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 3-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps an agent would otherwise hit: operation scope, the editing workaround, and the token requirement. It does not describe what the call returns, which is the one remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 67%, and the schema already documents the conditional requirements (capability for op='add', capability_id for op='deactivate'). The description's add/deactivate mentions duplicate the op enum rather than adding format or semantic detail beyond it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add or deactivate the calling agent's declared capabilities') and scopes it to the post-registration lifecycle ('AFTER registration'), which implicitly separates it from register_agent. An agent can tell what it edits and where it sits in the flow without opening the schema.

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?

It leads with an explicit 'When to use', states the currently supported operations ('add' and 'deactivate' only), and names the excluded path ('in-place editing is deliberately not shipped') with the prescribed alternative (deactivate-then-re-add). This is precisely the when/when-not/alternative routing the dimension asks for.

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