Register coding agent

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: every call creates a new agent record even for a repeated name, a warning is returned when an active same-name/worktree agent exists, invalid worktree paths are rejected with INVALID_INPUT, and the response includes the agent plus warnings. These details are significant for correct invocation and are not visible from annotations alone.

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 dense but every sentence adds essential information: purpose, call timing, non-idempotence, warning conditions, validation behavior, and return value. It is longer than average but justified by the need to explain branching behavior and constraints. Slight restructuring could improve scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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 registration tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers lifecycle timing, idempotency caveats, validation failures, response contents, and relationship to other tools. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the result without additional investigation.

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 parameter descriptions already cover all four parameters at 100% coverage, providing a solid baseline. The description adds meaningful extra context for worktree by stating it must be inside the bound repository and is otherwise rejected, and clarifies that the worktree records Git branch and head. This goes beyond the schema without needing to repeat every parameter.

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 specific action ('Register yourself as a participant') and the concrete resource produced ('the agent id every other write tool needs'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agents or publish_intent. It clearly communicates the tool's central role in the workflow.

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 description explicitly says to call it once at the start of each session and before publish_intent, providing clear ordering. It also warns about calling it again for the same name/worktree, which tells the agent when reusing the tool may not be appropriate. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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