team_time_register_agent_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never explains those traits — it does not say what registering overwrites, or what happens if the same chat is registered twice. It does add one useful piece of behavioral context not in structured fields: the return value (runId) used for linking and replies. No contradiction with the write annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter rule, then the return value. Nothing is padded, though the final return-value sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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 absence of an output schema makes the runId disclosure valuable, and the sessionId sourcing rule is a real contribution. However, for a non-idempotent, destructive mutation the description omits duplicate-registration behavior and any note on what the bridge does with an existing chat, leaving a material gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It meaningfully constrains sessionId (source it from hook context or the host, never guess), but leaves 'name' completely unexplained — it is unclear whether it is a display name, a chat title, or an identifier used for lookup.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Register this native Codex chat with the shared local bridge.' That is concrete and distinguishable from list/claim/reply siblings, but it never names team_time_link_agent_chat or team_time_bootstrap, which an agent could plausibly confuse with registration.

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 line 'Supply sessionId from hook context or the host; never guess another chat ID' gives a sourcing rule rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this should be called versus team_time_link_agent_chat, or what a caller should do if the chat is already registered.

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