add_client

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states behavior: it registers a client, holds no credentials, returns the client's id, name, and domain. It also mentions that a domain can be added later. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether it overwrites an existing client with the same name, or any idempotency behavior. The description is mostly transparent, but lacks some edge-case details.

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 concise and well-structured. It is three short paragraphs: the first states the core function, the second describes the return value, and the third gives usage guidance. It front-loads the most critical information and every sentence serves a purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return value (client's id, name, and domain). It also provides usage context. However, it could be improved by mentioning what happens if a client with the same name already exists (e.g., error or update), which would help the agent handle edge cases. Still, for a simple registration tool, it's mostly complete.

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 a bit of context: it states that the domain can be added later by naming it in a check, and that the tool holds only a name and a domain. However, it does not add much beyond what the schema already explains. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed (e.g., 'Used in tool names, so two clients cannot differ only by punctuation'), so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Register a client by name.' It specifies the resource (client) and the action (register/add), and explicitly notes what it does not hold ('Holds no credential, only a name and a domain'), distinguishing it from other tools that may involve credentials. This helps an agent understand exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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 guidance: 'Use this to write a client down before connecting anything.' It also clarifies when it is NOT needed: 'You do not need it first: naming a domain in `check` or `fix` registers it on the spot.' It differentiates from the sibling tool `connect_provider` by stating that connecting a provider is a separate step. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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