add_phone

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies what host and token mean and conveys persistence via 'Register', but it does not explain behavior on duplicate names, token validation, or whether the phone must be reachable at registration time.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second defines the two non-obvious required inputs. There is no filler or repetition.

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 registration tool, the description covers the required inputs, points to discover_phones for context, and an output schema exists. It is slightly incomplete on optional parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases, but not critically so.

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 explains host and token well, and name is implied by 'driven by name', but port and label are completely unmentioned. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a material 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' with a clear resource and intent: a phone, so it can be driven by name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_phones or forget_phone.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: registering a phone for name-based control. It also directs the agent to discover_phones for obtaining the host and to the Android Use app for the token, though it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives.

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