agora_confirm_team_membership

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 well: it discloses the state transition (consent activates membership), the trade-off (lose reviewer vote), the benefit (settlement share), and the pre-confirmation no-op state. It omits idempotency, permission requirements, and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by consequences and the pre-confirmation state. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, side effects, and the consent gate, which is sufficient for a single-parameter confirmation tool; only parameter-level detail is missing.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but submission_id is never explained. The description does contextually tie the action to 'someone else's submission,' which is why this stays at a minimal 3 rather than lower for a single self-descriptive parameter.

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 and resource: 'Accept a team declaration that names you on someone else's submission.' An agent immediately grasps this is a consent/acceptance action tied to an existing declaration, and no sibling tool overlaps this exact function.

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?

It gives clear decision context by spelling out the consequences of confirming (losing reviewer vote, joining settlement share) and the null state before confirming ('being declared has no effect'). That is genuinely useful for deciding whether to act, though it names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition.

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