register_extra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('register'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether registration is reversible, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters (extra_id, meal_date, meal_type, meal_mess) with descriptions and an enum for meal_type. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Register for an extra item' clearly states the action (register) and target (extra item), which is adequate. However, it doesn't specify what an 'extra item' is in this context (e.g., additional meal, special food item) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'register_meal' or 'create_monthly_registration', making it somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'register_meal', 'create_monthly_registration', and 'delete_extra_registration', the description lacks context on prerequisites, timing (e.g., before a deadline), or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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