register_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Remember' suggests a persistent side effect, but the description does not say whether registrations accumulate, overwrite existing entries, validate the path, or return any confirmation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and purpose efficiently.

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 registration action with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important behavior ambiguous: is the registration persistent, idempotent, overwriting, or additive? The low parameter count keeps complexity low, but the agent still needs more operational context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The schema already fully documents 'path' as an absolute path to a server directory, so the description adds little beyond framing it as a Minecraft server folder. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 names a specific action ('Remember') applied to a distinct resource ('dedicated Minecraft server folder') and ties it to compare/diagnose workflows. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with instance-related 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 'for compare/diagnose' implies the tool should be used before those operations, but it does not state whether registration is a prerequisite, how it relates to instances, or when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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