admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names actions and notes that params carries arguments, but does not reveal that actions like unregister, migrate, and restore are likely mutating or potentially destructive, nor does it mention permissions or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by an efficient action list. It contains no padding, though for eight actions it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a multi-action admin tool with a minimal schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It lists actions and explains the params pattern but fails to specify per-action input requirements, effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no enum for action and only a generic object for params. The description adds the valid action values and explains that params carries the action's arguments, which is helpful but insufficient; it does not document what parameters each action expects.

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 states "Manage the warden registry" and enumerates eight concrete actions, making the tool's purpose and scope clear. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as search, call_tool, use_skill, and route, which focus on other operations.

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 implies use for warden registry management through the action list, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or address possible overlap with the sibling 'route' tool for routing-related actions.

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