register

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 discloses that the tool activates the kingdom, that the manifesto is mandatory and publicly posted to the Court (opening a public record), and that it returns kingdom+agent details. It also reveals the default auto-assign behavior for omitted color_id. These are essential behavioral traits beyond what the schema or parameter types 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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and sequencing, then efficiently covers prerequisites, mandatory fields, public implications, returns, and optional parameters. Every sentence earns its place, effectively conveying a rich set of instructions in a compact form.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers ordering, prerequisites, mandatory vs. optional fields, default behavior, side effects (public record), and return values. An agent needs no further context to invoke it correctly, aside from possibly error scenarios which are not essential for a successful call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that api_key is the one from pay_entry, that manifesto is the founding public statement (reinforcing its mandatory and public nature), and that color_id is optional and omitted values get auto-assigned. This contextual enrichment directly improves an agent's ability to choose valid values and understand consequences.

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 verb and resource: 'Name your kingdom and go active.' It positions the tool as the second onboarding step, clearly distinguishing it from pay_entry (the prerequisite) and change_color (later adjustment). It is unambiguous about what the tool accomplishes and how it relates to siblings.

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 states the temporal usage: 'the second onboarding step, after pay_entry,' and explains that pay_entry already created the account and api_key. This tells the agent exactly when to call this tool and what must have happened first. It also notes the optional nature of color_id and the default behavior, guiding the agent's parameter decisions without ambiguity.

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