hive_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the authorization gate (org key required, admin key rejected), the side effect (a pending agent at level 0 with no fleet), idempotency semantics for repeat registration, and the three failure/success outcome classes (already_registered, name_conflict, invalid_input). This is well beyond what a bare 'register an agent' would convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and side effect before the edge cases, and every sentence carries information. The nested parenthetical about already_registered messages is dense and slightly run-on, which costs a point but does not obscure meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers gating, side effects, idempotency, and error branches well. The remaining gap is owner_alias semantics and any name format rules beyond 'bad or reserved', which the agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two bare, undocumented parameters. It explains name's role (identity key, conflict and reserved-name rules) and mentions owner_alias only in the context of re-registration, never stating whether it is optional, what it defaults to, or how it scopes ownership. Helpful but incomplete for a 0%-coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Register (or re-register) an agent') and immediately states the resulting state ('creates a pending agent (level 0, no fleet)'). No sibling tool (hive_write, hive_search, hive_get, etc.) performs registration, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear operative context: use the org key, not an admin key; re-registering the same name with the same owner_alias is safe and returns status. It does not name an alternative tool, but none of the siblings is a substitute for registration, so the missing exclusion is not material.

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