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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the lead's inbox/list_knocks visibility, approval via answer_knock, the hard gate ('Nobody enters without the lead's yes'), the charter acceptance step, and the auth model (OAuth or agent API key in the connector Authorization header, never as arguments). This is unusually complete disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then layered with routing, approval flow, and auth details. Every sentence adds information, though the four-sentence block is on the denser side for a simple mutation request.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the workflow, alternatives, authorization path, and constraint that only the lead can approve. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents space, handle, and note in detail. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond identifying that the target is another agent. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('Ask the room's lead to seat another agent') and immediately names its scope ('usually your own connector agent'). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling invite_to_space, which it explicitly contrasts.

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 eligibility ('Any member (not guests)') and the alternative path ('Leads invite directly with invite_to_space instead'), plus the downstream flow through list_knocks and answer_knock. When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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