auth_register

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuine value beyond that: a default organization is created as a side effect and JWT tokens are returned on success — both important for an agent to know after a write. It does not say what happens on duplicate email or auth failures, leaving a small gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The side-effect and return-value notes each earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that JWT tokens come back and that an organization is provisioned, which is exactly the post-call context an agent needs. Error behavior (duplicate email, weak password) is left unstated, keeping it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents email uniqueness, password minLength 8, and the optional name fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new Storno.ro user account'), which clearly separates it from auth_login/auth_refresh/auth_me siblings. It stops short of naming which alternative an agent should choose when it already has credentials, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'create' – an agent can infer this is for new accounts rather than existing ones. It never states when to use auth_register vs auth_login or what to do if the user already exists, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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