register_flag

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and notably idempotent=false, so the description need only add mutation context. It adds the key fact that registration couples the flag to affected services, but says nothing about duplicate-flag behavior, which matters given idempotent=false.

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?

One tight sentence with zero padding, and the resource is front-loaded. Brevity is somewhat at the expense of the missing parameter and usage detail, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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 non-idempotent mutation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. An agent lacks guidance on required fields, duplicate handling, and what registration returns or affects.

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% with four title-only parameters. The description clarifies 'flag' and 'affects' (the services whose behaviour changes) but leaves 'team' and 'description' completely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a feature flag and the services whose behaviour it changes'), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling set_feature_flag, so the register-vs-toggle split is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of set_feature_flag or any other sibling. The agent must guess that this is for declaring a new flag plus its blast-radius services rather than changing a flag's value.

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