register_platform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Register'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds necessary detail about parameter usage without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 this is a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects. The high schema coverage helps, but for a mutation operation, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'instructions or instructions_file' as alternatives for providing guidance, adding slight context about their relationship. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Register a new custom AI platform') and the resource ('for prompt optimization'), with specific details about platform requirements. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unregister_platform' and 'update_platform' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_platforms' or 'optimize_prompt'.

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 some context ('The platform must belong to an existing category') and mentions two parameter options ('instructions or instructions_file'), implying when to use each. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_platform' or prerequisites for registration.

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