rws_dataset_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior by calling the dataset version 'immutable' and requiring 'exact sample IDs', but it omits what expectedRevision does, what happens on a revision mismatch, and how idempotency interacts with requestId.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate, though given the 4-parameter mutation with a nested object it may be too terse rather than complete.

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?

This is a mutation tool with nested parameters, an expectedRevision concurrency control, and no output schema. The description does not explain revision conflict behavior, project scoping, requestId semantics, or what a successful registration returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It only vaguely maps to record.version ('dataset version') and record.sampleIds ('exact sample IDs'); it says nothing about requestId, projectId, or the concurrency-control parameter expectedRevision.

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 an immutable dataset version and exact sample IDs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling registration tools like rws_code_register or rws_artifact_register by naming the dataset resource, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many registration and save tools, yet the description offers no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites to help an agent choose rws_dataset_register over them.

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