register_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'register,' implying a write operation without detailing side effects like overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or activation semantics (despite an 'activate' parameter). This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no fluff. Every word adds information, though the total information provided is limited.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not cover essential parameters or usage nuances, leaving an agent to guess how to structure schema_definition or reducer_config.

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 43%, and the description does not explain any parameters by name. The only hint is 'global and user-specific schemas,' which roughly maps to user_specific and user_id, but it does not clarify required parameters like entity_type, schema_definition, or reducer_config.

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 the specific verb 'Register' and identifies the resource as 'a new schema or schema version,' with a clear note about global and user-specific schemas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_schema_incremental or analyze_schema_candidates. The only minor ambiguity is how versioning works, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies the tool is for registering new schemas when none exists or a new version is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_schema_incremental or other schema-related tools. Mentioning global vs user-specific schemas hints at selection criteria, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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