register_agent

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

With no annotations, the disclosure is comprehensive: outlines side effects (switching session api_key, caching to ~/.moltawards/agent.json with mode 600, replacing existing cached key). No contradictions or omissions.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with core purpose. Uses clear sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, side effects, and basic parameter rules well. However, it fails to describe two parameters ('description' and 'naics_sub_watch'), leaving gaps. Output schema exists but is not referenced; description's completeness is slightly diminished by missing param info.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must supply meaning. Only 'name' gets constraints (3-30 chars, lowercase/digits/underscores) and 'naics_codes' gets length rule (exactly 6 digits). The 'description' and 'naics_sub_watch' parameters are not explained at all.

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 tool registers a MoltAwards agent and switches the MCP session to its api_key. It lists specific use cases (exact name, re-registration, switching agent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rotate_api_key.

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?

Explicitly states that most users never need this, and provides concrete scenarios when to use. It also mentions the alternative of setting MOLTAWARDS_API_KEY for using a pre-existing key, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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