mcpmessage_register_chat

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses normalization behavior ('lowercase and trimmed'), uniqueness constraints, error return format ('Error: ... string'), and example failure cases. It does not mention every edge case, but it provides solid behavioral coverage for a registration action.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage timing, parameter explanations, and return value format. Every section adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return data shape, and error scenarios. For a simple registration tool, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 fully compensates by explaining 'name' as the chat's unique address with normalization, and 'description' as what is shown by mcpmessage_list_chats. Both parameters get meaningful semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a chat under a unique name so other chats can message it.' This clearly establishes the tool's role and distinguishes it from sibling messaging tools like mcpmessage_send and mcpmessage_list_chats.

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?

It gives explicit contextual guidance with 'Do this once at the start of a session' and explains that the name acts as the chat's address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is clear.

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