safe_mind_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a real side effect — a verification code is sent by email, and the account is not usable until verified — but says nothing about duplicate-email handling, error conditions, rate limits, or what the call creates on success (API key, tenant, etc.).

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a short justification of what Safe Mind is and the verification hand-off. Three tight sentences with no filler; the domain explanation is arguably tangential to invocation but brief enough to be low-cost.

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 six-parameter registration mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the unique email-verification workflow but omits parameter meaning and failure/side-effect behavior. It is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool but leaves meaningful gaps.

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% across six required parameters, so the schema names fields but explains none of them. The description only loosely alludes to 'company' and the email code, giving no guidance on password rules, employeeCount semantics, or name fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Safe Mind account with a company') and adds a one-line explanation of what Safe Mind does. It also distinguishes itself from the verify_email sibling by noting the follow-up verification step, so an agent can place it in the onboarding flow without opening any schema.

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 establishes the context of use (new company registration) and explicitly routes the agent to safe_mind_verify_email once the emailed code arrives. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what to do if the email already exists), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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