Register a local coordination actor profile or refresh an existing one to make it visible and available for multi-agent collaboration with acceptance-based contract review.
Register or refresh a local coordination actor profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| provider | No | ||
| actor_kind | Yes | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| display_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Register or refresh' implies create-or-update semantics, but it does not explain whether refresh overwrites fields, what side effects occur, or whether any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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, efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses points only because it is so terse that it leaves essential context entirely to the agent.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of actor kinds or capabilities, the 'local coordination' scope, or the behavior on refresh. An agent cannot invoke this tool correctly with confidence.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the five parameters. actor_id, actor_kind, capabilities, provider, and display_name are left entirely to inference from their names, which is insufficient.
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 verb ('register or refresh') and a resource ('local coordination actor profile'), and the target object ('actor') differentiates it from workspace- and team-oriented siblings. However, the term 'actor' is domain-specific and not elaborated, so it is not a perfect 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus sibling registration tools, nor on whether 'refresh' should be used for existing actors. The single line offers no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.