neurogenesis__register_compute_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one behavioral guarantee ('Routing never invents capacity or energy evidence') plus the fact that profiles are caller-owned. However, it says nothing about whether registration is idempotent, what happens on re-registration of an existing profile, required permissions, or what is returned.

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 and front-loaded: action first, then the acceptable profile kinds, then the declarable attributes. The bracketed domain tag is marginal overhead but the rest earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input profile's semantics reasonably well, but leaves gaps on the opaque second parameter, idempotency/overwrite behavior, and what the caller gets back on success or failure.

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 'profile' argument is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema provides no semantics at all. The description compensates substantially by enumerating the declarable fields (quality, reliability, capabilities, token costs, latency, locality, energy rates/average power, carbon intensity, cache confidence/age). Only 'request_id' remains undocumented.

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 ('Register a caller-owned Wu Wei execution profile') and enumerates the profile kinds it accepts (reuse/cache, deterministic rule, local model, tool/workflow, cloud model). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like route_task or create_agent, though the bracketed domain preamble adds noise rather than precision.

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 explicit guidance on when to register a profile versus when to route a task or create an agent, nor any prerequisites or sequencing. Usage must be inferred from the fact that registration logically precedes routing.

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