d365_plugin_step_register

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is limited to adding context, and it does: no automatic replay of the write, secure configuration is allocated as a separate row and bound during create, and all phases report IDs on failure. That partial-failure/ID-reporting detail is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema or 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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the validation, configuration, and preview details. No filler, though the secure-configuration sentence is dense enough that a shorter phrasing would read faster.

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 26-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: dry_run as a non-writing preview, partial-failure ID reporting, and secure configuration handling. It does not say what a successful call returns (e.g. step ID/shape), which is the main remaining gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 85% across 26 parameters, so the schema already carries the burden, including enums, aliases, and dry_run semantics. The description adds only the aggregate notion that message/entity filters are resolved and filtering fields validated, which explains behavior rather than individual parameters; specific parameter meaning is left to the 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Register a step for an existing native plugin type"), which separates it from the query/update siblings by implication. It never names d365_plugin_steps_query or d365_plugin_step_update explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring register-vs-read-vs-modify.

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?

Usage is implied by "Register a step for an existing native plugin type" plus the note that dry_run previews without writing, which tells an agent how to do a safe rehearsal. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the update/query siblings, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing the plugin type to already exist in the target environment.

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