Register application

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, read-write, and non-destructiveness. The description adds the valuable detail that it only affects the local registry and does not connect to or modify the host—beyond annotation coverage. This helps the agent understand side effects without contradiction.

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 fluff. It front-loads the core action and then clarifies scope, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is clear about purpose and scope, but it leaves out parameter semantics and the meaning of 'allowlisted' deployment definition. Given the zero schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for understanding what the tool does but not fully complete for invoking it correctly without additional context.

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 must compensate for explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (name, repository, branch, frontend, framework) or their meanings. The description only states the overall purpose, leaving parameter usage completely undocumented.

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 or update), the target (PHP application's allowlisted deployment definition), and its scope (local registry only). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_app and provision_stack by focusing on registration, and explicitly clarifies it does not touch the host.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for local registration, not host modification, which implies when to use it relative to deployment tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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