ep_register_entity

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

The description discloses that it is public and returns an API key, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, error handling (e.g., duplicate entity_id), and what exactly 'register' entails. With no annotations, the description should be more thorough.

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 extremely concise (15 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what 'public' means for usage, error conditions, or return format, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 only 20% (only entity_id and entity_type have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, leaving display_name, description, and capabilities ambiguous.

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 tool registers a new entity and mentions it returns the first API key. It differentiates from sibling tools like ep_search_entities, but could be more precise about the scope.

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 minimal usage guidance. It doesn't specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like ep_issue_commit or ep_create_delegation, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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