Register this device

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

The description clearly discloses that the operation cannot be undone, uses a two-phase prepare/execute flow, produces a short-lived token, and has backend validation on client_name. These traits go well beyond the annotations, which only state readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, then add the most decision-critical constraints (backend-accepted client_name, irreversibility, two-phase call flow). No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 covers the operation's irreersible nature, the confirmation-token flow, and return behavior (a token is produced on the first call), which is strong for a tool without an output schema. It leaves minor gaps such as exact token lifetime and semantics of the remaining self-explanatory parameters, but is otherwise 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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for client_name (must be a backend-accepted value, with example) and confirmation_token (two-phase flow), but it does not explain platform, device_name, client_version, or the required installation_id beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register a device/installation against the account.' It also clarifies the operation's two-phase nature and backend constraints, making it distinct from the large sibling set of list/update/delete tools.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool—registering a device/installation—and gives critical procedural guidance (valid client_name values, two-phase confirmation). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no direct sibling tool performs registration.

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