register_concept

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation ('Register') and explains field semantics. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return values (though an output schema exists). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It uses a clear, structured format with bullet-like sections for each parameter, wasting no words.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers the main use case and primary parameter well. It could mention 'source_thread' and relationship to sibling tools, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the required 'description' parameter well (use examples, avoid labels) and describes 'triangulation_notes' and 'confidence' with allowed values. However, 'source_thread' is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Register a concept that lacks a precise human name.' It specifies the unique use case (concepts without a canonical label), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_concepts' or 'expand_concept'.

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 the tool (concepts lacking a precise human name) and explains how to fill the fields (e.g., use examples, optional triangulation_notes, confidence levels). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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