register_drone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only implies upsert-like behavior via "register or heartbeat". It omits auth requirements, what happens on duplicate drone_id, whether an existing record is overwritten, and any rate/retry semantics — all material for a state-mutating registration call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A mutation-style tool with three required params, no annotations, and no output schema needs more: registration/update semantics, duplicate handling, and expected response are all absent. The description is too thin to safely invoke without 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents drone_id, hostname, and address and the baseline is 3. The description adds only one useful clarification (ssh_user ambiguity), and that parameter is not visible in the listed schema, so its applicability is unclear.

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 ("Register or heartbeat a drone") and the dual mode is clear. Siblings like fleet_snapshot, run_jobs, and task_status are unrelated operations, so the agent can place this as the fleet-membership/registration entry point, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to register vs. when to heartbeat, whether it is idempotent, or whether this should be called before run_jobs/dispatch_pending. The single hint is the word "or", which leaves the choice to inference.

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