register_agent

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 states that an agent is registered and that a profile is returned, but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate-name behavior, provider access requirements, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this leaves important behaviors unspecified.

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 uses a single summary sentence followed by a flat parameter list and a return-value note. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool and every line adds real semantic value beyond the schema, though the long list format is a bit mechanical.

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?

The description states the return value and parameter purposes, but lacks higher-level lifecycle context: how registration feeds into execute_agent or update_agent, what happens on duplicate names, and whether the agent is immediately usable after creation. For a complex creation tool without annotations or an output schema, some gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly: every one of the 11 parameters gets a meaningful explanation, including unique-name constraints, provider value details, temperature range, model examples, and conditional semantics like base_url applying to openai_compat and region to Bedrock. This goes well beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Register a new AI agent,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the action. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools (list/update/remove/execute) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 verb 'Register' and 'new AI agent' imply this is the creation tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of update_agent, or how it relates to execute_agent and safety config tools. The intended usage context is inferred but not stated, and no alternatives are named.

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