edgegate_register_byo_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently. It reveals non-obvious behavior: EdgeGate HeadObjects the URI, captures size/etag, and explicitly states bytes are NOT uploaded. It also discloses admin role and plan/grant prerequisites, plus the return value.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each of the four sentences earning its place: purpose, technical behavior, return usage, and prerequisites. No filler or 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (artifact_id) and how it connects to other tools. It also covers preconditions, permissions, and the core non-upload behavior. The rich schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 high (83%), and the schema already thoroughly documents parameters like s3_uri pattern, expected_size cross-check, and expected_sha256. The description adds context about HeadObject behavior but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence clearly states a specific action: register an existing S3 URI in a registered bucket as an EdgeGate Artifact. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing this is about artifact registration (not bucket registration) and explicitly contrasts with upload behavior.

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: admin role, Enterprise plan, active BYO grant, and bucket match prerequisites. It also notes the resulting artifact_id can be passed to edgegate_create_pipeline / edgegate_run_gate, indicating downstream usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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