register-algorithm

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and return values. It only states a high-level action without noting that this is a write operation, potential idempotency, or failure behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence, 'Register a new algorithm with the AI platform,' with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 registration tool with one nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the structure of the 'algorithm' payload, behavior on duplicate registration, or success/error responses, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with the description 'Algorithm registration payload,' but this is generic and tautological. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric, though the parameter would benefit from field-level detail.

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 ('Register') and resource ('algorithm'), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'unregister-algorithm' by opposite semantics, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other creation tools like 'create-training-definition'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the algorithm object must adhere to a specific format or if registration requires prior approval.

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