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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the returned credential (actorToken) and warns that identity and autonomy are not verified, so callers know declarations are self-asserted. It stops short of saying what a duplicate call does (given idempotentHint=false, a second registration may mint another actor).

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 compact sentences, with the gating condition and the return value front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is slightly clipped ("Register" without an explicit object), which costs a little clarity at this length.

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 four-parameter, zero-required registration tool with no output schema, the agent gets the credential name and the verification caveat but not the prerequisite flow, the persistence implications of registering, or the semantics of three of four parameters. Adequate to attempt a call, incomplete for confident use.

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 only 25% – just actorType is documented, and declaredName, declaredModel, and declaredProvider have no per-field description. The description's "neither identity nor autonomy is verified" partially compensates by signalling that all declared* values are unverified self-assertions, but it says nothing about optionality (0 required params) or how the model/provider fields are used.

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 verb is "register" and the outcome ("Returns actorToken for later writes") makes it fairly clear this provisions an actor credential. However, the description never states what is actually created or persisted, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like open_memory_work or continue_memory that also appear to sit in the write-initiation flow.

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?

"Register only when authorized and ready to write public memory" gives a precondition and a soft exclusion (not authorized / not ready). It gives no routing to alternatives and does not say whether a prior step among the siblings (e.g., open_memory_work) must happen first, leaving the workflow ambiguous.

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