mess_create_extra_registration

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld operation. The description adds valuable context: it specifies a prerequisite (existing regular registration) and immutability constraint ('Cannot be modified'), which are not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements beyond what's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, behavioral notes, and structured parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second gives a critical constraint, the third explains immutability, and the last two provide essential I/O details 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with prerequisites), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described). The description adds key context like the regular registration prerequisite and immutability. However, it lacks details on error conditions or response structure beyond 'JSON array of ExtraRegistrationInserted objects', leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section lists all parameters (auth_key/session, extra, meal_date, meal_type, meal_mess) with brief explanations. This compensates somewhat, but the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'item ID', 'Date YYYY-MM-DD') and don't add deep semantic context beyond what's inferable from names. The baseline is 3 due to the parameter list presence.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Register for an extra item on a meal') and resource ('extra item'), distinguishing it from siblings like mess_create_registration (regular registration) and mess_delete_extra_registration (deletion). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'User must have a regular registration at that mess for that meal' (prerequisite) and 'Cannot be modified — delete and recreate if needed' (alternative action). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus mess_delete_extra_registration for modifications.

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