Register Agent in Session Agora

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, and the description adds only the verification consequence. It never explains what happens if the agent or key is already registered (a real concern given idempotentHint=false), whether the public key must be unique, or what authority is needed to register.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse to carry any operational detail.

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 3-parameter registration mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential 'what' but omits failure modes, idempotency behavior, and prerequisites. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 three required parameters (agent_id, agent_name, public_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, uniqueness, or encoding detail beyond what is given, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (register) and resource (an agent in the Agora) plus the benefit (messages can be verified), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling register_agora_public, leaving the agent to infer which registration path applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. keys must exist first), and no named alternative. The clause 'so their messages can be verified' implies a workflow but never says when this must be called instead of register_agora_public.

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