register_owner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool triggers email verification via a magic link, which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after verification (e.g., workspace activation time).

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and outcome, the second explains the verification mechanism. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (authentication/registration), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and verification process but could improve by mentioning post-verification steps or error cases. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured fields but has minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'email' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints or verification timing). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Register your email') and resource ('to create a workspace'), with the explicit purpose of authentication with APIClaw. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'check_workspace_status' or 'setup_metered_billing' by focusing on initial registration rather than workspace management or billing operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for initial workspace creation and authentication via email verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., if already registered, use 'check_workspace_status' instead). The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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