agent_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that product-username is immutable, session_alias is a legacy field, and the display nickname changes only after owner approval. However, it omits broader behavioral details such as mutability of other fields, error conditions, or response behavior.

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 relatively short but includes the unclear and seemingly typoed sentence 'The launcher fixes the product,' which wastes words and confuses. The remaining sentences are dense with useful information, but the distracting sentence reduces clarity.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the overall purpose, some parameter semantics, and a side effect (nickname approval), but leaves conversation_id and roles undefined and does not mention output or error scenarios. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 meaning to username (globally unique, immutable machine identity), signature (preferred one-line personality text), and session_alias (accepted for older clients). It does not address conversation_id or roles, and with 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap, but the provided semantics are valuable.

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 this Agent identity and join an existing active room,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_create_room (creating vs joining) and agent_update_profile (registration vs updating).

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?

It implies when to use this tool (joining an existing active room) versus creating a room, and notes that 'session_alias remains accepted for older clients,' giving compatibility guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives or discuss prerequisites like authentication.

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