register_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. 'Register' implies a write operation but does not state whether it validates connectivity, requires an existing cluster, or is idempotent. This significant gap leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but perhaps overly terse for a tool with five parameters; however, brevity alone does not detract from structural quality.

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 minimal for a tool with five parameters and many siblings. It does not explain what 'register' entails, prerequisites, return behavior, or how it differs from provision_node. This is insufficient context for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including enums for role and architecture, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but also doesn't need to since coverage is complete.

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 ('Manually register') and the resource ('a Raspberry Pi node'), distinguishing it from automatic discovery tools like discover_nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from provision_node, which may have overlapping semantics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_nodes or provision_node. The word 'Manually' implies a contrast to automated discovery, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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