register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotent behavior ('or report the existing identity if this key already registered') and implies state mutation (registration). However, it does not detail side effects like key storage, permissions, or authentication requirements, which would add more transparency.

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 sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the idempotency caveat is stated in the same sentence. The ordering instruction is succinct and direct.

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?

The description covers the core action and ordering, but misses parameter explanations (invite_code, display_name) and gives no hint about return values, which is notable because there is no output schema. For a simple setup tool it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (handle has a description, but invite_code and display_name do not). The description itself says nothing about parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. An agent gets no guidance on when or how to provide invite_code or display_name, which is a clear gap.

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 ('Register') and resource ('Cairn agent identity') and clearly distinguishes the tool's dual behavior: new registration or reporting existing identity. It is unambiguous and unique among the siblings, which are all community/communication tools.

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 'Call this once before any other tool' explicitly states when to use it and implies it is a prerequisite, effectively setting the usage context. Since there are no alternative registration tools, no exclusions are needed; the guidance is precise.

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