register_intervention

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

Annotations are minimal (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the intervention is 'reusable' and contributes to causal map deltas, but it does not clarify idempotency behavior, what happens on duplicate names, or side effects beyond 'register'. This leaves ambiguity about mutability and duplicates.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loads the action, and adds a second sentence of context. No wasted words. However, it could be improved by including parameter hints without increasing length significantly.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, expected inputs, or the output format, leaving significant gaps for proper invocation.

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 0%: no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description mentions only 'name' implicitly via example but provides no information about the other three parameters (id, topic_tags, description) or their roles, defaults, or constraints. This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool registers a named, reusable change with an example ('unfreeze-projector'). The verb 'register' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_interventions' (listing) and 'register_diagnostic' (different resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, missing a chance for absolute clarity.

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?

Description implies the tool is used to create interventions that are reused across hypotheses for causal map attributions. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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