do_register

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result includes the stored point and a paste-ready snippet, but it omits whether an update overwrites or merges existing fields, what permissions are required, what validation errors look like, and how the 'irreversible' flag actually changes behavior — significant gaps for a create-or-update mutation.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, which is good, but the bulk is a single dense parenthetical of field names that reads as a data dictionary rather than prose. It is compact but not well structured, and the reader must unpack the nested clause to find the workflow-record variant.

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 the return values need not be explained, and the description wisely focuses on inputs. Still, for a create-or-update tool with a nested free-form payload and no annotations, missing details about update semantics, field placement, and the two operational modes leave an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 exposes a single opaque `payload` object with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by naming the expected fields and asterisk-marking the required ones (point_id, workflow, question, options, context_fields). However, it says these live 'at top level' while the schema nests everything under `payload`, leaving the actual key placement ambiguous, and types/formats for kind, rules, or data_class are never explained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Create or update a decision point', and enumerates the domain fields involved. An agent knows what the tool produces (a stored point plus a call snippet). It never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling do_record or the dm_register variant, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to choose do_register over do_record, dm_register, or the do_/dm_ prefixed siblings that clearly shadow it. The only implicit guidance is the branch 'With type: workflow, registers a workflow record', which describes a mode rather than a selection criterion, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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