identity__register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (update), the return type, and that capabilities must be non-empty lowercase. However, it omits critical behavioral traits like authorization requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid agent_id), or side effects. It adds some value beyond the schema but remains incomplete.

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 extremely concise, packing the purpose, return, and a key parameter detail into two short sentences. It is front-loaded with context in brackets and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It covers the core purpose and capabilities but fails to explain the role of other parameters (name, pubkey, etc.) or the behavior when updating an existing identity (e.g., merge semantics). This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It only describes the 'capabilities' parameter (non-empty lowercase tags). The other 6 parameters (name, pubkey, pricing, agent_id, endpoint, reputation_hint) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from defaults and names. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Register or idempotently update') and the resource ('agent identity'). It also mentions the return type (deterministic content-addressed DID) and a key parameter (capabilities). The bracketed prefix '[identity — verifiable agent identity + capability discovery]' provides context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like identity__resolve_agent.

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 implies this tool is for registering or updating an agent identity, and that capabilities enable discoverability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when the agent already exists, or preferring resolve_agent or discover_agents). No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is present but not explicit.

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