register_external_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the registration action and the purpose, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, authorization needs). It partially covers behavior with the attach_workspace parameter explanation.

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 front-loads the purpose, then usage guidelines, then arguments. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 parameter count (8) and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers all parameters and usage context. It does not describe the output schema, but context signals indicate an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Minor gap: no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., artifact ID), but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: type (with enum list), uri vs content distinction, project_id, source_agent, and attach_workspace behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool registers externally created artifacts into Lightbulb, making them discoverable and routable. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'OUTSIDE Lightbulb' and listing examples like code repos and documents, contrasting with internal create 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever an agent produces something external while orchestrating Lightbulb and wants it as a first-class artifact. It provides examples and mentions discoverability via list_artifacts. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., create_document for internal artifacts).

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