firestarter_market_link

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

The description discloses the key behavioral effect beyond the annotations: the join code attributes the member's activity to your program and earns you on their activity. This goes beyond the simple 'mint a code' statement and provides meaningful context for the tool's side effects, even though no details about code expiration or limits are provided.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage scenario and optional parameters. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple code-generation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the flow (mint → share → join → attribution) and connects to related tools. It does not describe the exact return value format, but given that the output is a 'shareable join code' and the workflow is clear, this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema – it clarifies that program_id comes from firestarter_create_market and that channel/campaign are for tracking, but these are already implied by the schema descriptions. Thus the description adds only marginal value.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Mint a shareable join code for a market you own' – clearly stating what the tool does. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by referencing firestarter_create_market and firestarter_join_market, placing it in a distinct workflow.

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 provides clear contextual usage: it is for markets you own, created via firestarter_create_market, and the generated code is meant for community members to join via firestarter_join_market. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the ownership requirement and references to sibling tools give solid guidance.

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