flowpass_register_pack

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful behavior beyond that: that registration performs validation of steps, hats, assertions, and fixture evidence. However, it does not disclose what happens when a pack id already exists or what the overwrite flag actually destroys, which is the key side-effect risk for a registration tool.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; the validation scope is compressed into one clause. Nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what a successful registration returns or what a validation failure looks like, and it says nothing about either. It also omits any mention of needing an existing pack id to be free, which matters given overwrite exists.

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 all three parameters are already documented structurally. The description pairs its two input modes with the pack_yaml and pack parameters, adding marginal framing, but never mentions the overwrite parameter or its semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a FlowPass pack') and immediately names the accepted input forms (YAML or object). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as flowpass_run, flowpass_status, or the analogous *_register_pack tools in other pass families, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only usage signal is the implied 'register before you can run' framing, which the agent must infer from the name and the existence of flowpass_run.

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