register_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is for 'registration' and 'reuse', implying persistence and mutability, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether registration is idempotent, what happens on duplicate resource_id, or the response format. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 action and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions), usage guidance, and output expectations. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description doesn't address the broader operational context needed for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'resource' encompasses the listed types. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like parameter interactions or examples.

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 resource types ('template, asset, data') with the purpose of 'reuse across the project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_resources' or 'generate_asset' by focusing on registration rather than listing or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'register_prompt_template' which is a more specific registration tool.

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, when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'register_prompt_template' for templates or 'generate_asset' for assets. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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