Register a generated component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool creates editable components, returns component_id and translation keys, and imposes a conventions requirement on the HTML. It does not cover all possible behavioral aspects (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), but the return value disclosure and prerequisite are valuable beyond basic mutation semantics.

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 three sentences, with each serving a distinct purpose: purpose (sentence 1), usage frequency (sentence 2), and return value/conventions requirement (sentence 3). It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence contributes actionable information without waste.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid overall context: it explains the purpose, when to call, prerequisite reading, and return values. It also includes a specific preservation instruction for component_id. It omits some details (e.g., handling of optional params, error scenarios), but it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity and relatively small parameter count.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the html parameter by linking to editable-HTML conventions, which is not in the schema. It also implies that the HTML should contain data-translate attributes (since translation keys are created). This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the action: 'Register an HTML section as an editable component in the customer's Neural Draft admin.' It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (HTML section as editable component), and distinguishes from siblings like create_page or delete_component. The phrase 'for EVERY section you generate' further clarifies scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call this for EVERY section you generate (hero, features, pricing, footer, etc.)' and provides a prerequisite ('read conventions://editable-html first'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the strong 'when' directive and context make usage clear. It slightly misses the 5 threshold due to lack of exclusions/alternatives.

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