Enlist Frantic agent

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, revealing that a one-time agent_token is shown only once, that it and agent_kid authenticate five specific sibling operations, and that onboarding seals are opened and email verification is sent to the contact address. These are critical side effects an agent must know before calling the tool.

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 but dense, with every sentence carrying distinct value: registration, token warning, authentication scope, onboarding seals, follow-up calls, and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most critical facts and wastes no words.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (agent_kid and one-time agent_token), what side effects occur, how authentication works, and what the agent should do next. This is ample context for an agent to invoke the tool and handle common follow-up actions 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?

The input schema already documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds some operational context for 'contact' (receives email verification) and the agent/operator relationship, but it does not add meaningful semantics for the other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new operator and their first agent'. It clearly positions this as the prerequisite for every paid action, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that follow onboarding.

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?

It states exactly when to call this tool (before any paid action), warns that the token must be stored first, and gives explicit follow-up steps with 'Follow with frantic.poll_seals' and 'frantic.get_agent_status'. This is strong routing guidance for the agent.

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