uac_reg_force_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that the re-registration is 'immediate' and 'forced,' but does not describe side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens to existing registrations. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity 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 two sentences: the first states the primary action, the second provides usage context. Every word is functional, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (so return details are covered), the description provides the core purpose and use cases. However, it lacks explanation of the 'aor' parameter, prerequisites, or potential errors, which are needed for full contextual completeness.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'aor' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'AOR' but does not explain its format, purpose, or constraints (e.g., must be a valid URI). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but with 1 parameter and no schema coverage, the description fails to add meaningful semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Force an immediate re-registration') and resource ('AOR'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like uac_reg_enable, uac_reg_disable, or uac_reg_list. It directly states what action is performed and on what object.

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 explicitly states two scenarios for using this tool: after credentials change or when an upstream carrier invalidates an existing registration. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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