register_visitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — dry_run performs validation only and does not submit — but says nothing about permissions/auth, duplicate handling, whether the booking is idempotent, or what happens on failure. Partial coverage for a mutation 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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the dry_run caveat second. The trailing keyword block is redundant noise for an agent but may aid retrieval; overall still compact.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be documented, but with 9 parameters (6 required) at 0% schema coverage and only dry_run explained, an agent lacks enough information to populate the remaining required fields correctly. Incomplete for a multi-param mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0% — all 9 parameters have only titles, no descriptions. The description explains only dry_run, leaving visitor_mobile format, visit_date/visit_time format, floor, and the visit_purpose default ('meeting') completely unspecified in both schema and description.

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+scope: registering exactly one visitor reservation at the Centerfield building. The '1명' (one person) implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk siblings (register_visitors_from_text/file), though it never names them. Clear, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explains the dry_run=true branch (validate only, do not submit), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this single-visitor tool versus register_visitors_from_text/file, nor any prerequisites such as who may file the reservation.

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