继续账号实名注册流程

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions that a long process must maintain the same MCP stdio session, which is useful. However, it does not disclose idempotency, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool in a multi-step flow, more transparency is needed.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first states the primary purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity of a multi-step registration flow with multiple sibling tools, the description lacks context on how this tool fits into the overall process. No mention of return values or what happens after calling it. The session constraint is noted, but flow progression is ambiguous.

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 description provides no explanation for the three parameters (field, value, flowId) beyond their schema definitions. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify what 'field' means or how 'value' should be formatted.

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 '为注册流程提供一个字段' ('Provide a field for the registration process') clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_start (starts the flow) and register_submit (finalizes) by implying it's for adding individual fields within a multi-step registration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied by the register flow context, but no direct statement like 'use after register_start, before register_confirm' is provided.

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