agent_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: it returns a profile record and re-registering updates role/metadata instead of erroring. However, it does not say whether metadata is merged or replaced, who may register, or whether a name is globally unique.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the upsert caveat appended after a semicolon. No filler, though the parenthetical precondition could be folded in more cleanly.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description should do more, and it does cover the mutation semantics and that a profile is returned. It still falls short on the nested metadata payload and on the identity/uniqueness model, which matter for a 3-parameter registration tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it only mentions role and metadata obliquely in the update clause. The required 'name' key, the default role of "member", and especially the nested metadata object's expected keys are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb (注册) and resource (agent), plus the payoff (returns a profile) and the upsert behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings (memory_*, agent_remember/recall/grant), though it never names them.

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?

"多 agent 协作的前提" implies when to call it (before any multi-agent work) and the duplicate-registration case is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative for reading existing agents (e.g. agent_recall).

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