c2b_register_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the registration action and prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing URLs), authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (4 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core action and prerequisite, but leaves out potential details like overwrite semantics, response format, or whether this must be repeated for each shortcode. Still, it is more complete than a typical minimal description.

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 only 25% (only responseType is described in schema). The description adds meaning for validationUrl and confirmationUrl by calling them 'validation and confirmation URLs', and implies shortCode via 'per shortcode'. However, it doesn't explain shortCode explicitly or enhance responseType beyond the schema's existing enum description.

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 a specific verb ('Register') with a specific resource ('validation and confirmation URLs') and the context ('when a customer pays your PayBill or till directly'). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like c2b_simulate or pull_register by focusing on URL registration for C2B.

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: it is a one-time setup step ('Required once per shortcode') and is needed 'before C2B notifications work'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well implied.

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