register_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which conveys the write/safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context: no mention of deduplication, storage scope effects, side effects, or permissions. The prose is philosophical rather than operational.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by field-specific guidance. It is compact and each sentence adds information, though 'locks it back into a human discipline' is slightly editorial and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 5-parameter write tool the description covers purpose and three fields, but omits `memory_scope` and `source_thread`, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains `description` (use examples, not labels), `triangulation_notes` (paraphrase runs that surfaced the invariant), and the `confidence` enum values, but leaves `memory_scope` and `source_thread` completely undocumented.

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 a specific verb (register) and resource (concept) with a qualifying scope (lacks a precise human name), so the agent knows this creates a new concept record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like expand_concept, concept_manage, or list_concepts, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a concept that lacks a precise human name' implies the usage condition, and the description gives guidance on how to fill the field rather than a canonical label. However, it names no alternative tools (e.g., expand_concept for existing concepts) and states no exclusions, so routing must be inferred.

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