workspace_register_existing_repo

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only, and the description adds important authorization requirements beyond them. It does not, however, describe what happens if the alias already exists or whether the registration persists or overwrites, leaving some side-effect ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentences cover purpose, exclusion, and prerequisites with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and the description avoids repeating schema details.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation, covering purpose, exclusions, and auth requirements. However, with no output schema, no explanation of setDefault semantics, and no statement about persistence or failure behavior, there are clear gaps that prevent it from being fully self-contained.

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 67%, and the schema already describes path and alias. The description adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. The setDefault parameter has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the description, so its meaning is left to inference.

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 and resource: 'Register an existing local Git repo as a remote HTTP/OAuth workspace alias.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from local/stdio access and from sibling workspace tools like workspace_list or workspace_create.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is 'Not for stdio/local provider path access' and directs those callers to pass local workingDir/addDir/includeDirs directly, both in the description and in the alias parameter description. It also lists concrete prerequisites: LLM_GATEWAY_WORKSPACE_ADMIN=1 and OAuth scope workspace:admin.

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