register_custom_chip

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the operation can 'dynamically override' an existing definition, which aligns with idempotentHint. It omits persistence scope (session vs durable), effect on existing designs, and any validation 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?

A single sentence with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the tool's ten-parameter, nested-object complexity.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not say whether the registration persists, whether overriding replaces the whole definition or merges, or how it interacts with downstream tools. The rich schema compensates for parameter coverage, but behavioral context is left largely to the annotations.

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% across all 10 parameters with concrete examples (chip_id 'CH32V003F4P6', pin_numbers map, peripheral_routes), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already documented, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (register/override) and a specific resource (third-party MCU pinout and peripheral multiplexing rules), which is enough to separate it from read-only siblings like list_supported_chips. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_supported_chips or validate_netlist. The phrase 'third-party' and 'dynamically override' weakly imply the case of an unsupported chip, but the agent must guess the trigger condition.

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