provenance__register_artifact

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

The description discloses idempotency and no genesis index consumption, adding value beyond the schema. But it omits other behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or prerequisite conditions, relying fully on the description due to absent annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The domain tag brackets provide context upfront, and every clause adds value. Ideal length for a tool description.

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?

Lacks information on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given no output schema and complex parameters, the description should cover what the response looks like or any state changes beyond 'register'. Leaves the agent guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only clarifies 'parent_hashes' (may be registered artifacts or external content roots) and artifact_id (idempotent). The other 4 parameters (relation, artifact_hash, metadata_digest, producer_agent_id) receive no explanation, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Register a content-addressed artifact in a separate provenance DAG' with a specific verb ('Register') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like provenance__register_genesis or read-only tools.

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 usage for non-genesis artifacts by noting 'does not consume a genesis index' and mentions idempotency on artifact_id. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with related tools.

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