mess_create_registration

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies failure conditions (403 error for closed windows or full mess), mentions optional guests parameter, and describes return values (JSON MealRegistration or 204 if already registered). While annotations cover basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), the description provides practical operational details that help the agent understand when and how the tool might fail.

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 distinct sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter summary, and return values. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (mutation operation with authentication, date constraints, and capacity limits), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage conditions, failure modes, parameters, and return values. With annotations covering safety hints and an output schema presumably detailing MealRegistration, the description fills all necessary gaps without over-explaining structured data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all parameters (auth_key/session, meal_date, meal_type, meal_mess, optional guests) and provides some semantic context (e.g., 'optional guests (int)'). However, it doesn't fully explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what's implied, leaving some gaps compared to the detailed schema.

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 the user for a meal') and resource ('at a specific mess on a date'), distinguishing it from siblings like mess_cancel_registration or mess_get_registration. It explicitly mentions booking/registering for specific meal types (breakfast, lunch, or dinner), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user wants to book/register for breakfast, lunch, or dinner') and includes critical exclusion criteria ('Fails with 403 if the registration window is closed or the mess is full'). It also distinguishes from alternatives by not overlapping with other registration tools like mess_create_extra_registration or mess_create_monthly_registration.

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