register_passenger_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Register a new application' without mentioning side effects, configuration changes, reversibility, permissions required, or what the registration process does. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence: 'Register a new Node.js, Python, or Ruby application'. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff or repetition, and every word 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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely brief. It fails to explain the registration process, required prerequisites (e.g., app files or dependencies), any side effects, or how this tool fits with sibling tools like ensure_passenger_deps and list_passenger_apps. The agent is left without sufficient context to operate 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic context by listing supported app types (Node.js, Python, Ruby), which helps explain the purpose of python_path and nodejs_version parameters, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Register' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a new Node.js, Python, or Ruby application'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_passenger_apps, unregister_passenger_app, and enable_passenger_app by indicating a create action on the app resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing app directory or running ensure_passenger_deps, and does not suggest scenarios where registration would be appropriate over other passenger app operations.

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