register_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds valuable behavior beyond the schema by explaining the ID derivation rule ("<kind>:<pendoId>") and its stability, which reassures about re-registration. It does not mention the destructive impact of `replace` mode, but that is already covered in the schema's parameter description, so the description still adds meaningful new information.

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 three sentences that are all front-loaded and purposeful: first the main action, then the explicit alternative, then a key behavioral detail. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 tool has moderate complexity (two parameters, one nested array) and no output schema, so the description should provide some sense of return values or broader side effects. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and ID stability, but it does not hint at what the tool returns or the full consequence of `replace` mode (replacing the entire structural layer). Since the schema already covers the mode behavior, this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate. It partially does by clarifying how `pendoId` and `kind` are used to form stable IDs, adding semantic meaning to those fields. However, it does not elaborate on the `mode` parameter or other entity fields beyond what the schema already states, so compensation is incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Register or update') and its resource ('Pendo entities in the structural layer') with a specific method ('using an explicit, pre-shaped list'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, especially `ingest_pendo_payload`, by contrasting raw results with pre-shaped lists.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool ('prefer ingest_pendo_payload') and the condition for using it ('For raw Pendo MCP tool results'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This is directly useful for agent selection.

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