register_tileset

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it well: it discloses the sizing formula (384 + height/4), the asset guard rules, and the force override. It does not detail potential side effects like overwriting an existing entry, but this is a minor gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by guard behavior and its role. No redundant language; every clause adds value.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, guards, sizing, and force override, enabling correct selection and invocation. It omits return value and whether an existing entry is overwritten, but the provided context is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for graphicName by specifying the 256px width and 32px content constraints, and for force by explaining the guard override. This elevates it above baseline.

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 action: creating a Tilesets.rxdata entry for an existing graphic, with specific sizing behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the guard mechanism and its role as the database gate for mis-classified art.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use: when a graphic already exists in Graphics/Tilesets and needs a database entry. It also explains when to use force:true (to override the guard), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like classify_asset or verify_tileset.

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