agora_join_mission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether joining is idempotent, whether it replaces or appends to existing roles, whether it can fail, or what side effects membership has.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the role list placed inline. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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 not be described, but for a mutation-style membership tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition omits too much: joining semantics, role defaults, and error conditions are all unaddressed.

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%, but the description compensates partially by enumerating the legal role values, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string array. However, mission_id is never explained and it is unclear whether roles is optional or what omitting it does.

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 gives a clear verb ('Join') and resource ('Mission') and enumerates the role vocabulary the agent can pick from. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling join-style tools (join_debate, join_challenge, join_group), but the resource is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus agora_join_debate, agora_join_challenge, or agora_join_group, and no mention of prerequisites such as being invited or the mission existing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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