register_spatial_data

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not disclose what side effects occur, such as modifying datasets, overwriting existing spatial keys, or requiring GPU resources. The return value mentions a 'registered spatial key' but does not explain whether it alters the input data. Since destructive behavior is likely, the description should clarify the nature of these changes, but it remains silent.

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 and uses a clear structured format with Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary verbiage and conveys the core purpose in two lines. It could be slightly more informative, but the structure is efficient and scannable, earning a high score.

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 tool's complexity (nested parameters, two algorithms with distinct behaviors) and destructive hint, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like loaded data, differences between method options ('paste' vs 'stalign'), or potential side effects. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to provide usage context and behavioral expectations, which it largely omits.

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, but it provides only minimal information: source_id, target_id, and a vague 'params: Registration parameters (method, alignment settings, etc.)'. Source and target IDs are self-explanatory, but the nested params object contains many fields (method, stalign_a, paste_alpha, etc.) with detailed schema descriptions that are not reflected in the tool description. The agent gets insufficient guidance on parameter selection or meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool's function: 'Register/align spatial transcriptomics data across sections.' This specifies a verb (register/align), resource (spatial transcriptomics data), and scope (across sections), which helps distinguish it from generic analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like integrate_samples, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the action and parameters, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when registration is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and general context, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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