lan_device_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., device removed from pending list), prerequisites, permission requirements, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short (7 words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it omits essential details, making this more a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

This is a mutating operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and only a one-sentence description. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to cover prerequisites, behavior, or parameter semantics. It is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters such as pending_id, name, room, or adapter_type. With zero compensation from the description, the agent has no guidance beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 uses a specific verb 'Promote' and identifies the resource 'pending device' and destination 'registry'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lan_pending_dismiss, lan_discover, and lan_device_list by implying the action of moving a device from pending to registered 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 implies when to use the tool (when a pending device should be registered), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Given sibling tools, it could have mentioned 'as opposed to dismissing' but this is not provided.

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