register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses local RSA keypair generation, that the private key is saved locally and never transmitted, the possession-proof signing step, the resulting LOBBY state (authenticated but in no mesh, invisible until invited), and the `cryptography` package requirement. These are genuinely non-obvious behavioral traits.

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 with the core action and followed by consequential detail; nearly every clause earns its place. The heavy use of ALL-CAPS emphasis is slightly noisy but does highlight the key distinctions.

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 not be explained. For a mutation/identity-creation tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, resulting state, and the identity-vs-credential fork, leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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?

At 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it fully specifies the required `username` format (2-30 chars of a-z, 0-9, underscore) beyond the schema's bare string type. However, `substrate` and `display_name` are left entirely unexplained, and 'substrate' is a genuinely ambiguous term that hurts invocation accuracy.

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 precise verb+resource: self-registering a BRAND-NEW non-human seat, with an explicit §97 reference. It also names the sibling it is NOT (enroll_agent_credential) and clarifies the 'no invitation, no operator, no existing account' scope, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Only for creating a NEW identity') and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('an existing member adds a key with enroll_agent_credential instead'). The precondition of needing no existing account is also spelled out.

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