register_document_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like auto-creating folders, applying templates, or custom fields, nor does it explain permissions, reversibility, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that clearly state the purpose and the key scope decision. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite the tool having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers purpose and scope. It omits important context such as what the response looks like, prerequisites, side effects (e.g., folder creation, template handling), and how to handle conflicts. While the schema fills in parameter details, behavioral and environmental context is lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds a brief clarification of the scope parameter, but this mostly repeats the schema's explanation. It does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states clearly that the tool registers a new document type, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_document_types, delete_document_type, and find_similar_document_type by focusing on creation/registration and noting scope options.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to register a new document type) and gives explicit guidance on scope values (global vs project), which helps agent choose the correct setting. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as checking for existing types with find_similar_document_type.

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