company_artifact_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 no byte copy occursainer, which is helpful, but it does not explain whether registration creates or updates a catalog entry, whether it rewrites existing registrations, what permissions are needed, or what the agent can expect as a result. These are significant behavioral gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and the most important constraint. No words are wasted, and every clause contributes useful meaning.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain return values, side effects, registration semantics, or how the optional parameters influence behavior. An agent could guess the primary input but would lack enough context to configure the call 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverageebb, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. Only file_path can be loosely inferred from 'existing local artifact', while tenant_id, artifact_type, classification, and source_native_id are entirely unexplained. The description adds little value beyond the raw parameter names and defaults.

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 identifies the action: 'Register an existing local artifact by fingerprint'. It specifies the resource (local artifact), the mechanism (fingerprint), and a key behavioral constraint (without copying its bytes), which distinguishes it from tools like company_artifact_inspect or company_artifact_snapshot.

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 implies the intended use: registering an already-existing local artifact rather than uploading or copying it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like company_artifact_inspect, company_artifact_segment, or company_artifact_snapshot, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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