agora_register_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait ('frozen hash' implies immutability for confirmatory work), but omits permissions, what freezing prevents, whether registration is reversible, and how the idempotency_key affects repeated calls.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient, though the second sentence carries disproportionate weight for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 output schema spares the description from explaining return values, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage on 8 parameters, and a frozen/immutable operation, the description is too thin for the complexity. Critical registration mechanics and field semantics are absent.

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 0% across 8 parameters (7 required), so the description must compensate. It only alludes to the confirmatory_or_exploratory parameter and gives no meaning for research_question_id, analysis_plan, primary_outcomes, success_criteria, negative_result_criteria, stopping_rules, or idempotency_key.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a frozen AGORA protocol') and adds a distinguishing outcome: exploratory stays labeled, confirmatory gets a frozen hash. This is clear, though it does not differentiate this tool from the many other research-lifecycle siblings (create_claim, create_challenge, etc.).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The confirmatory/exploratory sentence hints at the tool's role in the research lifecycle but never states preconditions or routes the agent elsewhere.

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