paybot_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (trust level) and the idempotency contract, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, side effects of registration, or what happens on a duplicate botId without a key.

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, no filler, and the core action plus its return value are front-loaded ahead of the optional idempotency note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the returned value, and the idempotency escape hatch, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of failure modes (duplicate botId, permission requirements), leaving a small gap.

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 botId, trustLevel, and idempotencyKey including defaults and bounds. The description's only parameter-related content (the optional idempotency key) restates the schema field, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Register a new bot with the PayBot facilitator') and states the primary output ('Returns the assigned trust level'). No sibling tool in the list performs registration, so the operation is unambiguously distinct from paybot_pay, paybot_balance, and the pool 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of an idempotency key for 'safe re-issue' hints at the retry scenario, but the description never says when to register versus re-register, nor what to do if the bot already exists. No alternative tool is named or excluded.

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