loop_register

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: hashing (sha256, write-once), id assignment, phase splitting, local persistence, and privacy (nothing leaves the machine). No contradictions.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the registration process, constraints, and next steps. It lacks explanation for optional params like role and trigger, but the schema provides basic descriptions for most. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 71% (5 of 7 params described). The description adds value for 'content' by explaining how it becomes streamable phases, and reinforces 'id' constraints. Other optional params (role, title) are not elaborated, but schema covers most; thus the description enhances understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: adding a user's own loop to the local MCP. It specifies the action ('Add YOUR OWN loop'), the resource (local MCP), and differentiates from sibling tools like loop_start and loop_library by focusing on custom loops and referencing mandated loops.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to register a custom loop) and implies that mandated loops do not need registration. It also advises to use loop_start afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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