register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses two non-obvious side effects — pending messages follow the new name, and the old name ceases to exist. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the name must be unique among existing agents.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action comes first and the constraints and side effects follow in a logical order; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, format, and side effects. Gaps are minor: it does not say what a successful or failed rename returns, or how collisions with existing names are handled.

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 single parameter is a bare string in the schema with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying length (1-32) and the allowed character class (a-z 0-9 _ . -). It does not state whether the name must be unique or free of collisions.

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 and resource: it changes this session's bridge name. It also resolves the ambiguity of the bare name 'register' by explaining it is a rename, not a signup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but no sibling (whoami, join_room, send_message) could be confused with it.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. The clause 'Queued messages move with you' hints that renaming mid-session is safe, but the agent must infer the trigger condition on its own.

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