register_auth_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that credentials are never stored, which is important, but it does not explain idempotency, duplicate handling, state changes, or prerequisites like a valid session_id. The session_id parameter remains unexplained.

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, well-structured sentence that is concise and directly conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information.

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 that the tool has an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not mention return values or side effects. It lacks details on workflow integration (e.g., required prior steps like start_session) and does not address the nested structure of profiles, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 0% for top-level parameters (profiles, session_id). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definitions; it does not explain how profiles are structured or what session_id is used for. For a tool with two parameters, the description should clarify at least the required context.

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 states the tool registers auth profile metadata and environment-variable names, and explicitly notes that actual credentials are never stored. This provides a specific verb+resource and a key behavioral distinction.

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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools like compare_authorization, scan_high_signal, etc., have different purposes, but the description does not differentiate or provide context for when registration is appropriate (e.g., before scanning).

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