seed_register_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that it calls a public endpoint, but does not mention prerequisites, side effects (e.g., duplicate orgName handling), idempotency, permissions, or response details. For a registration operation, more transparency is expected.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or tangential information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not mention what the response looks like, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions. The lack of an output schema puts the burden on the description to clarify expected outcomes, which it fails to do.

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 has only one parameter (`orgName`) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not add any semantic detail beyond the parameter name, such as uniqueness requirements, allowed characters, or relationship to existing orgs. The name `orgName` is self-explanatory, but the description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('Register a new Seed organization') and specifies a distinguishing detail: 'with backend defaults' and 'calls the public organization register endpoint.' This differentiates it from the sibling tool `seed_create_org` by referencing the public endpoint.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance or explicitly contrast with alternatives. It mentions the public endpoint, which implies a specific use case, but there is no direct statement about when to use this tool versus `seed_create_org` or other org-related tools.

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