register_contracts_as_tools

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds real context beyond that: it mutates the dynamic tool list, bypasses a config gate, and returns a per-vault diff. It does not explain reversibility or what happens to existing dynamically registered tools that are still valid, which would have rounded it out.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's role and effect, and the return value and scoping rule follow in order. It is dense and mostly earns its sentences, though identifiers like '(D-A1)' and the config-key bracket are noise for an agent selecting a tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape (per-vault diff of {registered, unregistered}). Combined with the scope rule and the config-gate bypass, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `vault`. The description restates the omission semantics ('omit vault to apply to every configured vault'), which duplicates the schema's own description rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verbs and resources: scans the per-vault contract registry and updates the dynamic MCP tool list, naming both effects (registers new contracts as vm_<name>, unregisters removed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like describe_contract and instantiate_contract, which operate on individual contracts rather than the tool registry.

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 tells the agent when this is needed (the explicit-control escape valve that works regardless of the [contracts.auto_register_tools] gate, and is always callable) and the vault-scoping option. It does not name an alternative tool or state when *not* to call it, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not guide.

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