register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: it registers with an external service, can trigger trust-badge verification, and will bond immediately based on a server env var. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on repeat invocation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the optional parameters, then the conditional bonding behavior. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and side effects but leaves gaps an agent would want: what the call returns (identity/agent id), whether re-invocation is idempotent, and any auth requirements. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain that domain and business_name are optional and that they trigger trust-badge verification. It does not give format expectations (bare domain vs URL) or any constraint on business_name, leaving some ambiguity for both parameters.

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 names a concrete verb pair (create/load identity) and its target (register with Darkroom), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like bond_status or find_agents. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling tool, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent when to supply the optional params (domain/business_name trigger trust-badge verification) and when bonding occurs (DARKROOM_BOND_TXID set), which is useful conditional context. However it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving tool selection to inference.

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