provenance__register_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does so by stating idempotency on artifact_id, that it does not consume a genesis index, and that parent hashes may be registered artifacts or external content roots. This gives the agent important mutation and safety context beyond a basic registration.

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 concise at three sentences, each serving a purpose: category header, core action, and key behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: artifact registration, idempotency, parent hash possibilities, and exclusion from genesis index consumption. It does not describe return values or error cases, but for a registration tool with this complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning to key parameters: 'Idempotent on artifact_id' clarifies the artifact_id parameter's behavior, and 'Parent hashes may be registered artifacts or external content roots' adds context for parent_hashes. However, it does not explain other parameters like relation, metadata_digest, or producer_agent_id, so compensation is partial.

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's purpose: 'Register a content-addressed artifact in a separate provenance DAG.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like provenance__register_genesis and provenance__get_artifact. The category prefix 'provenance — genesis certificates, lineage, recalls' further contextualizes the domain.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for registering artifacts in a separate DAG as opposed to genesis, and mentions parent hashes can be registered artifacts or external roots, but lacks direct guidance on when to choose this tool over other provenance tools.

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