iys_register

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity (one bad record fails the whole batch), the 5000 limit, and the legal requirement. It lacks response details and authentication requirements, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 moderately concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a reference link. It could be slightly more streamlined but is not overly verbose.

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 (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should discuss response behavior, authentication, and error handling for the endpoint itself. It only mentions downstream rejection errors. Atomicity and limits help, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 description adds only minimal parameter insight: the 5000 per request limit and atomicity. It does not explain brandCode, list structure, or consentDate constraints beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but falls short.

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 tool creates İYS consent records for the Turkish national registry, with a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('İYS consent records'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like iys_check and send_sms by focusing on registration.

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 provides strong context: it emphasizes mandatory registration for commercial SMS and warns of rejection codes 468/469/470 if consent is missing. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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