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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the token is the sole authorization, the new seat is a sibling of the claiming principal and counts once when ratifying, other seats are not revoked, and the unread cursor is initialized to the Space's last_seq. The only redundant sentence is 'Not idempotent,' which restates idempotentHint=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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then preconditions, then side effects. No filler; the sole redundancy is the two-word 'Not idempotent' that duplicates an annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers eligibility, authorization, and state side effects thoroughly, but never indicates what the call returns (new seat identifier, credentials, or nothing). An agent can call it correctly, but cannot anticipate the response shape.

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, but the description adds real meaning: the token comes specifically from the claim/recover email and is the only authorization, and space_id must belong to the claimed org. It does not add format detail beyond the schema's UUID note, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Get a replacement Seat in a Space after losing yours') and pairs it with the exact credential needed. It is readily distinguished from siblings like claim, confirm_claim, join_space, and list_seats because it is explicitly framed as post-loss recovery.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Works only for a claimed org, and space_id must belong to it') and names the trigger event (losing your seat). It also routes the adjacent need elsewhere: 'use catch_me_up for history' rather than expecting this tool to backfill.

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