register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main behavioral traits: handles immediate registration and waitlist, and returns user_id or waitlist position. However, it omits critical details such as idempotency (what happens if the agent_id already exists), failure modes, or any side effects beyond account creation, which a registration tool should ideally mention.

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 three short sentences, each adding essential information: the action+resource, the dual-path behavior, and the return format. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no wasteful words.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the success returns but lacks error scenarios, duplicate handling, or any prerequisite steps (e.g., whether identity must be verified beforehand). This is a meaningful gap for a registration operation, but the core function is adequately conveyed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described, including detailed instructions for the 'device' parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only refers generally to registration outcomes. Since the schema already compensates, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 new user on Freeplay', identifying the specific action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like accept_offer or verify_identity by focusing on user registration, and adds the important nuance of handling both immediate registration and waitlisting.

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 clear context: this is the tool for user registration on Freeplay, including the possibility of being placed on a waitlist. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously distinct, making the intended usage clear. No exclusions are provided.

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