register_product

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is fire-and-forget (don't await the result), the conversation should end, and a macOS notification fires on completion. That async, side-effecting behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 the critical invocation constraint front-loaded. Every sentence carries information; only the notification detail borders on trivia, but it supports the fire-and-forget behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the async behavior is covered. However, for a 2-param write tool it says nothing about parameter meaning and never points to get_registration_status for tracking the async result, leaving a real gap.

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% and the description mentions neither 'url' nor 'category_hint'. With two parameters (one required, one optional with a default) completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the verb '등록' (register) and ties it to a product link, but it largely restates the tool name and never explains what registration actually does (persist a product into tracking, etc.). It offers no differentiation from siblings like get_registration_status or get_product_details, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicit invocation condition: call only when the user explicitly requests registration with a product link, and after calling do not wait for the result but end the conversation. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it names no alternatives (e.g., the status-check sibling) for follow-up.

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