yaaif_mcp_deployment_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description states the core action (registering) but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the registration immediately makes the server discoverable, whether it overwrites existing registrations, or if it requires specific permissions. It is a single sentence that adds limited behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 a single sentence, tightly packed with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Register') and the object. It is appropriately concise for a simple registration operation.

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 complexity of the system and the lack of any annotation or output schema, this description is insufficient. An agent needs to know when to call register versus other deployment lifecycle tools, what effect registration has on the catalog, and what the parameters represent. With only 4 parameters and zero schema coverage, the description does not provide enough to invoke correctly without significant inference.

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 0%, meaning none of the four parameters (spec_id, slot_key, spec_version, deployment_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter's meaning or the relationship between them (e.g., why spec_id and spec_version are needed). The only hint is from names, and the required parameter deployment_id is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('deployed MCP server into the agent-service tool catalog'). It distinguishes this from the sibling deployment tools (create, update, stop, delete) by focusing on 'register' after deployment, which is unique among siblings. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid confusion.

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 implies a post-deployment action (registering a deployed server), which is a clear context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_mcp_deployment_update or yaaif_mcp_deployment_deploy. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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