add_peer

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility but only hints at the registration process. It incorrectly implies only bidirectional sync while the schema includes push and pull. No mention of side effects, auth requirements, or post-registration behavior.

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 with no wasted words. However, for an 11-parameter tool, it is under-specified and could benefit from a brief list of required fields.

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 high complexity (11 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the peer_config concept, expected return, or follow-up actions.

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 only 27%. The description adds meaning for peer_url, entity_types, and shared_secret but omits 8 of 11 parameters, including required ones like peer_id, direction, and auth_method.

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 the action 'Register' and the resource 'Neotoma peer', and mentions key aspects like peer_url, entity_types allowlist, and shared_secret. It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as remove_peer and sync_peer.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sync_peer or remove_peer. It does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.

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