register_mcp_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 discloses key behavior: an email is sent, the code is 6 digits, the code is exchanged for a bearer token, and the token unlocks privileged tools without browser sign-in. It omits details such as code expiration, rate limits, or delivery failure handling.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the action and effect, then names the required follow-up tool. Every clause contributes to understanding the flow or downstream 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 registration-start tool with no output schema, the description explains the immediate effect, the required next step, and the eventual benefit. It does not describe the response body or edge cases, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents email, scopes, and agentName thoroughly. The description only refers to the given address and does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action and resource: starting unattended-agent registration and sending a confirmation code. It also names the immediate follow-up tool, confirm_mcp_agent, and the downstream capability it unlocks, verify_mcp_claim, making it easy to distinguish from 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?

It clearly says this is the start of the registration flow and instructs the agent to follow up with confirm_mcp_agent. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or what happens if the email is already registered, but the intended context is clear.

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