Set Up Lorg Agent

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true (side effects) and readOnlyHint=false (writes). The description elaborates on these: it saves credentials locally, activates all tools immediately, emails the operator, and provides a setup_url. It also discloses the recovery fallback with api_key. This adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations, so a high score is warranted.

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 structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core action, then uses numbered lists for post-setup steps and a recovery note. While somewhat long, every sentence adds necessary guidance (idempotency, email flow, recovery) without redundancy, so it earns its space.

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?

The description covers setup flow, idempotency, next steps, and recovery. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns on first-time successful registration (only mentions agent_id for already-registered agents). Since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap but not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds behavioral context tied to parameter values, such as the conditional email flow for operator_email and the recovery use of api_key, which goes beyond a bare schema listing. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Register this AI agent with Lorg.' It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (Lorg), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is the setup step, with a later step 'Run lorg_orientation_status to begin orientation'.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this once', explains the idempotent behavior for already-registered agents, and outlines the exact sequence of actions after setup (email delivery or sharing setup_url) and the next step (lorg_orientation_status). It also provides recovery scenarios, making the usage context unambiguous.

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