register_decision_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency semantics, conflict refusal behavior, optional persistence to a server tables directory, and that table_hash is a SHA-256 of RFC 8785 canonical JSON. It omits authorization requirements and the exact error surface beyond the version-conflict case, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary action and its consumer (evaluate_decision) come first, followed by return fields and then the conflict rules. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical hash explanation is somewhat heavy for the space it occupies.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (table_id, version, table_hash, domain, policy) and covers persistence and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a 5-parameter write tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds meaning about how version immutability and table_id stability govern future lookup and about table_hash derivation from table_json, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (decision table) plus the key scoping concepts — stable table_id, immutable version — and ties its purpose to a named sibling, evaluate_decision. An agent can distinguish it from list_decision_tables or evaluate_decision without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: register so evaluate_decision can reference the table and receipts record the policy version. It also resolves the main ambiguity an agent would face — re-registering identical content is a no-op, conflicting content is refused and must become a new version. It stops short of naming sibling tools for checking what is already registered (e.g. list_decision_tables).

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