nacos_register_instance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nodes are persistent by default (ephemeral=false per ADR-0002) and can be made ephemeral, which is meaningful write-behavior context. It still omits idempotency, behavior on duplicate registration, required permissions, and reversibility.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler; the parenthetical ADR-0002 reference is functional rather than wasteful. Slightly denser than ideal but well structured.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested metadata, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the persistence default. Registration semantics such as duplicate handling, permissions, and return behavior are left unaddressed, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 11 parameters including the ephemeral default. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('向微服务注册新实例' – register a new instance), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like nacos_deregister_instance and nacos_update_instance. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly contrasts its role with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'register'; the description adds no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling comparison. The note about ephemeral=false being the default and the option to declare ephemeral explicitly gives some operational context, but not enough to count as real routing guidance.

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