register_trail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'register' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing trails).

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 concise, with one introductory sentence and a clear parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the list format could be more structured (e.g., using Markdown).

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 complexity (6 required params, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers parameter meanings and basic purpose. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, and output details, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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?

All six parameters are explained with semantic meaning beyond their titles (e.g., 'author_id: your unique identifier', 'steps_json: JSON list of steps...'). This compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Register') and resource ('Mycelium Trail — a verifiable recipe of MCP service calls'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute_trail' (run) and 'get_trail' (read).

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 implies usage (creating a trail) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'execute_trail' or 'list_trails'. No guidance on when not to use it.

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