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

Annotations only establish that this is a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call mints an on-chain NFT/IP asset and creates an ongoing royalty stream for the designer, which an agent needs to know before invoking. It omits permanence/irreversibility and any auth or gas considerations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and the economic consequence. The key action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned ipId and NFT token, and it explains the royalty side effect. It leaves a few gaps for a write tool with a nested object payload (preconditions, whether re-registration is rejected, any approval/auth step), but it covers what an agent most needs.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the nested capability object and commercialRevShare range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how commercialRevShare interacts with the royalty claim), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 capability as a Story Protocol IP Asset') and even names the outputs (ipId, NFT token), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as create_capability, register_job_evidence_ip, or get_capability_ip, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the royalty sentence hints that you register when you want the designer to monetize a capability, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., must the capability already exist?), and no named alternative tool. An agent can guess the context but gets no routing guidance.

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