register_member

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation and adds the important constraint that email must be unique, which signals duplicate emails will likely cause failure. It does not detail error formats or auth requirements, but the disclosed constraint is a meaningful behavioral trait.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the key constraint are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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 simple two-parameter registration with an output schema already available, the description covers the essential elements: operation, inputs, and a key constraint. It could be slightly richer by mentioning what happens on duplicate email, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to both parameters: 'name' is the member's name, and 'email' is the member's email and must be unique. This is helpful but does not explain formats, normalization, or duplicate-handling behavior beyond uniqueness.

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 action ('registers'), the resource ('a new library member'), and the required inputs (name and email). It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling member tools like list_members, get_member, and delete_member.

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 phrase 'registers a new library member' gives clear context for when to use this tool: adding a new member to the library. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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