raven_register

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

The annotations already flag this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. 'Register your email' reinforces that it is a state-changing action, but it does not mention persistence, consent, unsubscribe behavior, or what happens after the email is registered. The feedback/connect framing also suggests capabilities not present in the schema.

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 appropriately short: two sentences front-loading purpose and then trigger guidance. Mild redundancy exists around 'feedback' and a minor inconsistency between 'Raven creator' and 'Raven team', but these do not seriously hurt clarity.

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?

For a simple two-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves room for ambiguity. The most notable gap is that it invites feedback and connection intents despite no supporting input field being provided, and it does not clarify whether the tool simply registers an email or also starts a communication workflow.

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 schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions and an email format, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds little beyond singling out email as the key value; the phrase 'hold feedback' implies a message field that is not actually available in the input schema.

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 names a specific action ('register your email') and a clear outcome ('receive design updates and provide feedback'), which makes the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like register_creative_asset, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a user wants to register, give feedback, or connect with the Raven team.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not cover when not to use it or name alternatives.

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