auth_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that a default organization is auto-created and that JWT tokens are returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects like email verification requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the email is already taken (though schema notes 'must be unique'). Reasonable but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loads the primary purpose, adds behavioral detail (organization creation, JWT return). Efficient and well-structured, though the JWT return could arguably be part of return-value documentation.

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 4-param registration tool with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, this description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action, a side effect (default org), and the return type. Lacks some detail about post-registration flow (e.g., email verification), but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema (email unique, password min 8 chars). The description adds the context of JWT return but doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new Storno.ro user account'), clearly states what the tool does, and differentiates from siblings like auth_login and auth_register. The additional details about default organization creation and JWT tokens further clarify the scope.

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?

The description implies usage context (registration flow, returns JWTs for subsequent authenticated calls) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like auth_login (for existing users) or how this differs from auth_forgot_password/auth_reset_password. It's clear enough for registration but lacks explicit exclusions.

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