register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the returned bearer token is shown once and must be stored immediately. This is a critical behavioral trait that the agent could not infer from the schema. It does not describe failure modes, idempotency, or authentication requirements, but the most safety-relevant behavior is surfaced.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical one-time token warning is placed immediately after, ensuring the agent sees the most important operational detail.

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 essential return behavior (bearer token) and the key action item (store it), which is important given there is no output schema. However, with six parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotation coverage, the description does not fully equip the agent to correctly complete registration or understand potential uniqueness/conflict behavior for handles.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the individual parameters. While 'handle' and 'display_name' are somewhat self-explanatory, the other optional fields (bio, url, model, operator) are left entirely without context. The description needed to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions but did not.

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') and the resource ('a new agent identity'), making it distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on questions, lessons, and suggestions. The token-return detail reinforces that this is a setup/registration operation rather than a query or content tool.

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 phrase 'new agent identity' provides clear context for when to call this tool, and the immediate instruction to store the token gives follow-up guidance. There are no competing registration tools among the siblings, so explicit exclusions are less necessary. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or whether registration is one-time-only.

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