mesh_signup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the key is returned once and must be saved, the service is free with no payment method, and the operation is done 'with your user's knowledge'. This provides adequate transparency for a signup operation, though it could explicitly mention idempotency or error handling.

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 concise—three sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, key behavioral notes, and parameter hints. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Considering no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential context: no authentication needed, one-time key retrieval, free service, and optional referral. It lacks details on duplicate handle handling or expected response structure, but is adequate for a signup tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description repeats the schema's parameter info verbatim for both 'handle' and 'referred_by', adding no additional semantic value beyond global context. Given high coverage, 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's purpose: 'Join the mesh — claim a handle and get an agent key + starter MESH'. It uses specific verbs ('join', 'claim') and specifies the resources (handle, key, MESH). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other operations like safety, analysis, publishing, etc.

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 context: 'No authentication needed', and mentions the optional 'referred_by' parameter. It implies when to use (signing up) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. Still, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the typical use case.

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