Register Solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well. It discloses append-only semantics, forward-only state progression, gate-failure behavior returning `error`, and the conditional YAML/git side effect triggered by versioned YAML or `solutions_path`. It leaves some details unstated, such as idempotency and permissions, but the core side-effect profile is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the state list and then behavior/side effects. It is dense but scannable, with no filler. The last sentence is slightly overloaded with conditions, keeping it just short of a top score.

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 complex 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is registered, the valid state progression, error behavior, return value, and the YAML/git side effect. It does not fully document every optional parameter or explicit sibling alternatives, but it is reasonably actionable as written.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by listing the forward-only states for `status` and tying `solutions_path` to the YAML side effect. However, most optional parameters (`checks`, `commits`, `evidence`, `error_class`, `recipe_path`, `documentation_path`) are left to name-based inference, which is a meaningful gap across 12 parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Registers'), an object ('a verified solution'), and the append-only nature, making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from reindex_solutions or index, but the state list helps clarify the intended operation.

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 implied: use this tool when a verified solution needs to be recorded through a forward-only state transition. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools like search, index, or reindex_solutions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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