mint_join_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses stake transfer, TrustScore account creation, state change to Active, and failure conditions. It mentions 'configured signer' but does not elaborate on authorization or gas costs. Still, it provides solid behavioral context.

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 two paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core action, and the second paragraph adds necessary detail. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 complexity (multiple actions: transfer, account creation, state change) and a single parameter, the description covers the main effects and failure modes. It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists. Missing mention of prerequisites beyond cell state, but overall adequate.

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 only parameter 'cell_id' is described adequately in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool joins an open work cell by locking stake, and distinguishes itself from siblings like mint_create_cell (creation) and mint_settle_cell (settlement). It uses specific verbs ('join', 'locking') and resource ('work cell'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (to join an open cell that is not full) and failure conditions (if full or active). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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