Register Dataset

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by explaining the mechanism: content is normalized and stored in an immutable content-addressed store, and identical content maps to the same dataset ID. This meaningfully clarifies retry and deduplication behavior beyond the annotation values. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the required column map, and the content-addressing behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 that the schema has zero parameter descriptions and there is a sibling tool for local registration, the description leaves important gaps. An agent still cannot determine what root_id and relative_path refer to or what 'confined CSV' means, which are necessary to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists, but that does not cover input parameter meaning.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains the column_map values by listing the canonical fields (datetime/open/high/low/close/volume/openinterest), but it says nothing about root_id or relative_path, which are required and non-obvious. The description compensates for only one of the three parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Normalize a confined CSV into the immutable content-addressed store.' It also clarifies the purpose by noting that identical content maps to the same dataset ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling register_local_dataset, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context and a prerequisite — it requires an explicit canonical column map with the listed fields. It does not, however, say when to prefer register_dataset over alternatives like register_local_dataset, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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