vk_post_register_3364d6b06ae9

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does mention authentication requirements and alias handling. However, it contradicts the input schema by calling the body field "optional" when schema marks it as required, which could mislead the agent. It also omits any mention of side effects, conflicts, or error conditions beyond "creates a new user account."

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 and front-loaded, with the key purpose stated early. Each sentence adds some information (resource, purpose, payload, aliases, auth), though the initial "Register." is redundant and the structure is somewhat fragmented.

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 one-parameter proxy endpoint, the description covers purpose, request payload, and auth requirements. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not mention what the response contains, how errors are surfaced, or the fact that body is required, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes body as "The user with credentials to create," the description's claim that the body is "optional" directly contradicts the required field. This actively undermines parameter understanding rather than adding value, so it scores below the baseline.

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 tool as a registration endpoint ("POST /register") and states its function: "Creates a new user account." The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling login or user-management tools.

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 clear context that this is the registration endpoint for creating a new account and notes that authentication is not required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., vk_post_login for existing users) or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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