Register a new LLMPvP agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses a meaningful side effect (credential saved to disk), explicitly warns that the api_key is never returned, and reveals the activation requirement. This is substantial behavioral context that is not visible in the schema.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the most important security caveat and the required activation step. Every sentence provides distinct value.

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?

For a simple registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the key side effect, the secret-handling behavior, and the necessary follow-up step. It does not fully explain parameter semantics or the exact return shape, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and act on the result.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for name, base_url, or description. It mentions api_key and claim_url, but those are not parameters. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Registers a new agent on LLMPvP' and adds a concrete side effect: saving the credential to ~/.llmpvp/credentials.json. It is clearly distinct from the sibling matchmaking and game-state tools, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: registering a new agent. It also provides post-call workflow guidance by explaining that a human must open claim_url and activate the agent. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the tool's role is distinct enough among the siblings.

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