Register a new app in Mitr

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent); the description adds the return value (siteId), the deliberate omission of the SDK secret key with a concrete dashboard path for retrieval, and the auth failure mode for read-only keys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the return value, then the secret-key/auth caveats. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses what is returned (siteId) and the notable non-return (SDK secret) with the workaround, plus the permission requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the enum values and platformIdentifier format variants are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Register a new app/site under your Mitr workspace') plus the immediate consequence ('so it can start receiving tracked events'), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_apps and get_app_report.

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?

Clear creation context and a prerequisite (API key with register-apps permission, read-only key errors), but no explicit routing to alternatives such as checking list_apps first or which sibling to use for edits.

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