passkey_generate_registration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says an operation named 'Generate' will happen. It does not disclose side effects such as writing files to the project directory, what the return value is, or what failure behavior looks like.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: one sentence without behavioral or output details makes this more sparse than appropriately sized.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context: what the generated registration flow looks like, whether it modifies the specified directory, and what the caller should expect afterward. An agent would have to guess about the tool's behavior.

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 both parameters ('directory' and 'api_key'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema covers this ground.

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 clear verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('WebAuthn registration flow'), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like passkey_generate_auth and passkey_setup_server. It is not a tautology, though 'flow' is somewhat vague about the concrete output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the word 'registration' rather than explained.

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