nayori_register_agent

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial details: 'Costs only the fixed fee' and 'Returns a txid; broadcast is not confirmation', which inform the agent about cost and the non-finality of the return value. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with 'WRITE (mainnet)' to immediately set expectations, then states the purpose, constraints, cost, and return behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 simple schema (two string parameters) and the annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the constraints on parameters, the cost, and the return value. Since there is no output schema, explaining that it returns a txid and that broadcast is not confirmation is necessary and provided.

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. It does provide format details for both parameters ('printable ASCII, 1-64 chars' and 'max 256'), which match the schema but add human-readable constraints. The semantic role of name/description is implied from the tool's purpose, though not explicitly stated, but it is clear enough.

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 verb 'Register' and the specific resource 'agent in the Nayori agent-registry'. It also differentiates from siblings by noting the agent wallet is always the signer address and the endpoint list is empty, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and description. It clearly indicates this is the registration operation, and the constraints (signer wallet, empty endpoints) imply it's for initial agent setup, providing adequate context.

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