mess_create_monthly_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 operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies error conditions (409 if already registered, 403 if window closed or mess full) and mentions the return type (JSON MonthlyRegistration object). This provides practical usage insights not covered by annotations.

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 efficiently structured with three focused sentences: purpose, error conditions, and parameters/returns. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words.

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 multiple parameters and error conditions), the description is complete: it states the purpose, error behaviors, parameters, and return type. With annotations covering safety hints and an output schema implied by the return statement, no critical gaps remain for agent usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args' section lists and briefly explains all parameters (auth_key/session, month, year, mess), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions (e.g., no details on auth_key vs. session usage or mess ID format), keeping it at baseline adequacy.

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 at a mess for an entire month') with the resource ('mess') and scope ('entire month'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mess_create_registration' (likely for single meals) and 'mess_create_extra_registration' (for extras). It uses precise verbs and defines the exact temporal scope.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for monthly registration) and implicitly distinguishes it from other registration tools by specifying the 'entire month' scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for single-day registrations).

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