solver_register_arm

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns the created arm with arm_id, status, and artifact_hash for skill kind. However, it does not mention side effects beyond creation, permission needs, idempotency, or failure 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, target, endpoint, and key return values compactly while remaining easy to parse.

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 an 11-parameter schema with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation. It omits the kind-dependent payload structure and does not clarify which optional fields apply to which arm kind, so an agent is left to infer key registration semantics from the schema alone.

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 45%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It does not explain how kind selects among artifact, endpoint, or model_id, nor what lifecycle, cost_class, capability_tags, or data_class_grants mean. The only parameter-related hint is the artifact_hash mention for skill kind, which is insufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Register') with a clear resource ('a model/agent/skill arm') and even names the HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/arms). It also distinguishes the arm kinds, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious relative to siblings like solver_list_arms or solver_enable_model_arm.

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 operation itself implies usage: call this to create a new arm. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a source connection), and no alternatives are named among the many sibling tools.

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