register_spatial_data

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), and the description appropriately confirms it creates a registration result. It adds value by specifying the return fields (method, dataset IDs, spot counts, registered spatial key), though it does not detail side effects or requirements beyond that.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, labeled Args, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main inputs, output structure, and purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (nested parameters for different registration methods), it lacks examples or hints about when to use 'paste' vs 'stalign', which could aid completeness.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names: 'Source dataset ID', 'Target dataset ID to align to', and 'Registration parameters (method, alignment settings, etc.)'. With schema description coverage at 0% for top-level params, the description should provide more context, especially for the complex 'params' object.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Register/align') and resource ('spatial transcriptomics data across sections'). This distinguishes it from siblings such as 'integrate_samples' and 'identify_spatial_domains'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where other tools are more appropriate, or why one would choose this over similar tools like 'integrate_samples'.

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