dm_register

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (stored point plus a call snippet to paste into the skill), which is useful, but says nothing about overwrite semantics when point_id already exists, permission requirements, validation failures, or whether updating is destructive.

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?

Dense but largely purposeful: the parenthetical field list and the return note both earn space. The '§1.1' section reference is opaque without external documentation, and the workflow-mode clause is appended in a way that reads as an afterthought rather than structured.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, and it does sketch the field set for a nested free-form payload. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, unclear payload nesting, and no sibling routing, an agent is left guessing about a nontrivial amount.

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 coverage is 0% and the only schema property is a free-form 'payload' object, so the description's field enumeration (point_id*, workflow*, question*, kind, options*, etc.) is the sole source of parameter meaning and is genuinely valuable. However, the asterisks marking required fields are never explained, and 'fields at top level' conflicts with the schema's required 'payload' wrapper, leaving real ambiguity about how to shape the call.

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: create or update a decision point, and adds a second mode (type: workflow registers a workflow record). The verb and resource are unambiguous, but the two modes are packed into one tool without saying which one an agent is choosing, and nothing distinguishes it from the many dm_*/do_* siblings beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use dm_register rather than dm_decide, dm_record, or do_register, nor on create-vs-update behavior. The only conditional is 'With type: workflow', which explains an internal mode rather than tool selection context.

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