register_device

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the write-gate env flag, that the payload schema comes from a separate get_schema call, that there are no path parameters, and that behavior is not live-validated. It does not explain the confirm_destructive flag or what the registration actually does on the server.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' sentences are redundant, and telegraphic fragments ('No path parameters') add noise rather than meaning.

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?

Output schema exists so returns needn't be explained, and the write gate plus payload schema pointer are the key facts. However, for a 4-param mutation with zero schema coverage, the unexplained confirm_destructive flag and absent guidance on payload construction leave real gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate; it covers payload (defer to get_schema) and rules out path parameters, but leaves query and confirm_destructive completely unexplained.

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 concrete verb+resource ('register_device: POST /v1/device'), so an agent knows this registers a device via that endpoint. It does not distinguish itself from other write siblings like register_anonymous_user or link_account, leaving scope ambiguity.

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?

Implies usage through prerequisites (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true, payload must follow CreateDeviceRequestProto) but never says when to choose this over sibling account/device tools, nor when not to call it.

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