berrry_register_tool

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

Despite no annotations being provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it does NOT deploy, it verifies via the NOMCP files endpoint before finalizing, and rolls back the tool entry on failure. This covers safety, failure modes, and required credentials, all beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 with five focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and the critical caveat ('Does NOT deploy'), then logically proceeds to requirements, usage guidance, and post-registration steps. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the registration process, verification, rollback, and post-use instructions. It implicitly indicates the return value (a slug) by telling the agent to use tool_call with it, but could explicitly state that the tool returns a slug for clarity. Otherwise, it is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the subdomain parameter format (e.g., 'json-validator') and that 'name' defaults to the subdomain. It also clarifies the auth_path enums and that nomcp_credential_id must be a UUID. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema definitions.

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 it registers an existing Berrry app as a JauMemory tool, using the verb 'register' and specifying the resource. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'berrry_create_tool' by noting that this tool does not deploy and is for apps already created via the web UI or other paths.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS WHEN: you already created the app via the Berrry web UI...' and contrasts with 'berrry_create_tool' for deploying fresh files. It also notes the prerequisite of storing a vault credential and gives post-registration instructions for tool_call and NOMCP file management.

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