ble_spec_register

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that front-matter validation occurs and path flexibility, but does not detail side effects like overwriting behavior, error handling, or what the tool returns. This is adequate but incomplete for a destructive write operation.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first covers the core action, and the second adds essential validation and path details with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the lack of output schema and complexity of registering a file, the description lacks information about return values, idempotency, and what happens on success/failure. It is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps for a functional agent.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter, but the description adds value by specifying that the path can be absolute or relative to CWD. This goes beyond the schema's 'Path to the spec markdown file' and clarifies the expected input format.

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?

Clearly states 'Register a spec file in the index' with a specific verb and resource. The validation detail further clarifies the tool's role. While the action distinguishes from siblings like ble_spec_list or ble_spec_get, it does not explicitly differentiate from other write 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?

Implies usage when needing to add a spec file to the index, but provides no explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ble_spec_template for creating templates) or when not to use it (e.g., if file already registered).

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