register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or overwrite behavior. It only states the action without explaining what happens under the hood, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal space.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral details, and any mention of effects or return values, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (id, role, status, display_name). The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses specific verbs ('register', 'refresh') and identifies a clear resource ('this agent's identity in the shared mailbox roster'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents or set_status, as it focuses on identity registration rather than reading or status updates.

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 phrase 'register or refresh' provides clear context for when to use the tool: initially register or update an existing agent identity. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to recognize the appropriate use case.

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