Register finish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: it is gated on email verification and reuses identity_register's keyset payload. It says nothing about session/auth requirements or what account state results, which a registration mutation tool would benefit from.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the precondition comes first and the payload note second. Slight deduction for burying the arguably more important payload contract in a parenthetical.

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-completing mutation in an auth flow, the description omits session/auth prerequisites, what is created or returned (no output schema exists), and failure modes. With 0% parameter documentation and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it.

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 coverage is 0% across three generically named params (form, params, json_body) with no descriptions and no required fields. The reference to identity_register's keyset payload is a partial lifeline for json_body, but nothing explains the role of form or params, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Finish registration after email verification'. The parenthetical explicitly ties it to the sibling identity_register as the source of the payload, which distinguishes it from that sibling. It stops short of 5 because the distinction ('finish' vs 'start' the registration) is only implied, not stated.

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?

'after email verification' is a real precondition that implies ordering relative to the verification-email tool. However, it never says when to call identity_register vs this tool, or what to do if verification hasn't happened, so the agent must infer the sequence.

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