register_prompt_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool registers a template but doesn't explain what 'register' entails (e.g., whether it creates a persistent resource, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like overwriting existing templates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function and key features, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, nor does it provide usage context. For a registration tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 all 7 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Prompt template with {{variable}} placeholders'). The description adds minimal value beyond this by mentioning 'variable placeholders and resource references', which aligns with the 'variables' and 'resource_refs' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Register') and the resource ('a reusable prompt template'), specifying key features like 'variable placeholders and resource references'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_prompt' or 'generate_scenario' by focusing on registration rather than execution or generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'register_resource'), making it a 4 instead of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'register_resource' or 'execute_prompt'. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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