Manage Participants

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: the plaintext token is returned once and must be saved, tokens are hashed and unrecoverable, and the tool is used for leak containment. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

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, front-loads the purpose, and provides essential behavioral context without any redundancy or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete about return values for list and revoke. However, it adequately covers the three actions and their critical behavioral nuance (token returned once). Missing output details slightly reduce completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum actions' meanings (list for finding ID, new for minting with token warning, revoke for invalidation). However, pane_id and participant_id descriptions are not enhanced beyond schema.

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 it manages a pane's participant URLs for recovery and leak-containment. It distinguishes three actions via an enum (list, new, revoke) with specific purposes. No sibling tool serves this exact function, making it uniquely identifiable.

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 explicit guidance for each action, such as using 'new' when the original URL is lost. It implies usage contexts (e.g., 'list' to find participant_id) but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternative tools.

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