content_register_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: the tool does not move or change files. However, it does not mention whether the root must already exist, whether it indexes or scans the root, whether it requires write permissions, or what the side effects of registration are. This is a partial disclosure, leaving key behaviors unspecified.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately adds a critical constraint ('without moving or changing its files'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the purpose of registering a root, what prerequisites exist (e.g., does the path need to exist?), how the root integrates with content indexing or search tools, or what the expected outcome is. An agent lacks enough context to safely invoke it without additional probing.

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 0%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (name, path, family). The schema provides basic types and defaults, but the description adds no semantic meaning or context about what each parameter represents or how they interact. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 a clear action ('Add an explicit third-party sample library/preset root') and a resource, with a specific qualifier ('without moving or changing its files') that hints at scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like content_discover_roots or content_index, so an agent must infer differences from the qualifier alone.

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 phrase 'without moving or changing its files' implies a use case where the root already exists and should not be altered, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or list any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no sibling tools are named.

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