register_handle

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

No annotations, so the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the idempotency-relevant trait that 'registering the same object twice produces two aliases' and that each call returns a fresh handle, plus the return shape. It does not discuss permissions or persistence guarantees, but for a registration helper this is strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a usage sentence, then two tight parameter lines and a returns line. No wasted words; 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?

For a 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies purpose, triggers, both parameter semantics, multiplicity behavior, and the return shape. It is essentially complete; only edge cases like error behavior on an unknown object name are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'object' is explained as the FreeCAD object's .Name with concrete examples ('Helix001', 'Cut'), and 'prefix' is given a default and meaning. Only minor gap is no note on prefix format constraints.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register an existing FreeCAD object into the AnkusDrive handle table') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the upstream triggers (run_script with auto_register=False, open_document). An agent can tell it apart from get_object or list_objects immediately.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use: 'Use after run_script (when auto_register=False) or after open_document' and states the goal (so subsequent tool calls accept them via handle). This is exactly the when/why an agent needs.

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