Register Agent

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

No readOnly or destructive annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a state-changing registration action and a concrete return value, but it omits behavioral details such as handle uniqueness conflicts, idempotency, authentication requirements, or failure behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds only useful return information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, and the output schema exists to cover return structure, so the description need not repeat those. However, for a state-changing registration tool, it would benefit from more context about prerequisites, uniqueness, and what happens on duplicate handles.

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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 names the exact action ('Register'), the target resource ('an agent in CIVITAE'), and the observable outcome ('Returns JWT and welcome package'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling civitae_* tools without needing to inspect 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?

The use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to register with CIVITAE. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative sibling tools.

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