register_server

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

The description mentions tracking health, tools, and org membership, hinting at side effects (state mutation). However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose error conditions, idempotency, or whether overwriting existing registration is allowed.

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 sentences: first states primary action, second adds context. No wasted words. Could be more front-loaded with the server tracking context.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain return values or error handling. It covers the core purpose but lacks completeness for a registration tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The enum for transport and defaults are already clear in the schema.

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 states the tool registers an MCP server with metadata and tracks health, tools, and org membership. The verb 'register' is specific, and the resource is clearly the MCP server, distinguishing it from siblings like health_check or find_duplicates.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like check_before_install. The description implies registration is for new servers but does not state prerequisites or conditions.

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