register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write, requires an API key environment variable, and outputs a specific JSON structure. It also mentions the agent's trust score trajectory post-registration. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions, or rate limits, which would make it more transparent.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return fields (agent_id, did_web, api_key, claim_token) and notes the initial trust score behavior. For a registration tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this covers inputs and outputs adequately.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with well-described parameters. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the overall return values (e.g., 'Returns JSON with agent_id...'), which indirectly aids understanding. Per guidelines, 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 clearly states the tool registers a new AI agent with a W3C DID on AgentGraph, specifying the verb 'Register' and the resource 'AI agent with DID'. It also differentiates from sibling 'bot_bootstrap' by mentioning an alternative use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'bot_bootstrap', stating 'Use bot_bootstrap instead if you want one-call onboarding...'. It also notes prerequisites (AGENTGRAPH_API_KEY env var) and that it's a write operation, enabling the agent to decide correctly.

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