legal_trade_secret_register

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about JWT, tenant, and company scoping, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what side effects or data changes occur when the trade secret register action runs, despite the destructive hint.

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 short and front-loaded with the action name and routing behavior. The Args list is compact and easy to scan. No filler or repetition, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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 tool with an obscure name and a huge sibling list, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the business purpose of trade secret registration, when the agent should call it, or what the structured inputs should contain. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing domain context.

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 Args block carries the burden. It explains message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, which adds some meaning beyond the property names. But it remains generic and does not describe the expected structure or possible keys for inputs.

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 says 'Run the legal domain agent action `trade_secret_register`', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It identifies the domain but never explains what registering a trade secret actually does or what outcome the agent should expect. It does not distinguish itself from the many other legal_* sibling 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as legal_ip_docket_sync or legal_tm_clearance_search. The routing and scope details are useful mechanically but do not help an agent decide whether this action is appropriate for the user's request.

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