register-pce-credentials

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it flags the mutation via 'WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state' and explains the client-gating pause, including the critical instruction not to retry while waiting. Overwrite semantics are also disclosed.

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 convey purpose, effect, and a crucial behavioral warning with no filler. The most important operational facts are front-loaded.

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 write operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: what changes, what becomes available, the approval pause, and retry guidance. Together with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable but does not raise the baseline.

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 names a specific operation ('Register (or overwrite) PCE credentials') tied to 'the current authenticated user' and states the concrete effect: all PCE tools become available in the session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-pce-credentials and check-pce-credentials-status.

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 makes the intended use obvious: register/overwrite credentials for the current user so PCE tools become available. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative status/check tools, but the overwrite wording and availability effect give clear context for when to call it.

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