register_spatial_data

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

Annotations indicate write operations (readOnlyHint=false), but the description does not disclose side effects, data mutation details, or whether original data is preserved. The return description is present but does not cover behavioral traits.

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 concise with an Args/Returns structure, no redundant sentences. It efficiently conveys purpose and parameter roles, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

While the description covers purpose, parameters, and returns, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., data must be loaded), error behavior, or performance considerations. For a registration tool with many parameters, the completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for top-level parameters (source_id, target_id), but the tool description adds meaningful context ('Source dataset ID', 'Target dataset ID to align to'), compensating for the gap. The nested RegistrationParameters are well-described in the schema.

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 'Register/align spatial transcriptomics data across sections', providing a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_cell_communication or integrate_samples. The scope is well-defined.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer context from sibling names.

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