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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description enriches them with pre-validation order, per-member error granularity, the no-pairing invariant, and explicit exclusions of messages/payments. These details go beyond the structured hints and do not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with the action and target, and every sentence adds a distinctive fact: queue scope, validation order, error type, pairing invariant, and side-effect absence. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 low complexity of the tool and the support from annotations and schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the operation, target, member limit, validation flow, error behavior, and what side effects do not occur. The output format is not described, but return-value details are not essential here.

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?

The description adds meaning by clarifying that agent_ids are 'selected team members' and that there is a maximum of 20, which is not fully expressed outside the schema. However, schema coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate for team_key usage or agent_id format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Join or leave the live queue' and a precise scope: 'up to 20 selected team members.' It also includes a distinctive behavioral detail ('Members of the same team never pair together') that separates it from generic join/leave or team 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?

The description gives concrete operating context: memberships are checked first, per-member busy/quota errors are returned, and no messages or payments are made. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but the 'live queue' wording and the side-effect disclaimer make the intended use case clear.

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