register_agent

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it is not an implicit create, duplicate slugs are rejected, re-registering the same name is safe, and an unknown agent name yields a 400 UNKNOWN_AGENT error. This gives the agent a clear model of the side effects and constraints.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the auth requirement and core action before usage rules, attachment flow, and edge cases. Each sentence contributes meaningful operational guidance, with no filler beyond a brief motivational clause that supports contextual understanding.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return values (id, slug, wire-up instructions) and explaining the full lifecycle: registration, monitor attachment, duplicate behavior, and error semantics. An agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly and integrate it with create_monitor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying the name parameter to slug derivation and duplicate-slug behavior, and notes that the description parameter is optional. It does not deeply elaborate on parameter formats, but the schema already handles most of that.

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 action—'Register a new autonomous agent in the project's agent registry'—and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_monitor, get_agent, update_agent, and delete_agent. It also explains the tool's unique output: id, slug, and wire-up instructions.

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 provides explicit usage context: call it once per autonomous worker, not per monitor, and requires API key write scope or higher. It also names the integration path—pass the returned agent_id or slug to create_monitor's agent_id parameter—and clarifies when re-running is appropriate.

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