Social Become Scratcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects: nothing happens without confirm, accepting implies agreement to community guidelines, and promotion cannot be undone. This is thorough and explicit, far exceeding a minimal disclosure.

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 longer than average due to the guidelines summary, but it is well-structured: purpose first, then usage nuance, then guidelines, then irreversibility. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the guidelines excerpt could be trimmed for conciseness without losing essential meaning.

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 tool's gravity (accepting a promotion with legal implications), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the workflow, the confirm parameter, the guidelines acceptance, and the irreversible outcome. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. No critical information for an agent to call it correctly 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?

The schema already describes the single `confirm` parameter with full coverage (100%), including its default and behavior. The description reinforces this by restating the confirm semantics in context ('nothing happens unless confirm is set'). It adds marginal value by tying the parameter to the overall workflow, but the schema alone is already clear.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Accept a "become a Scratcher" invitation for the active account.' It clearly identifies the action and resource, and the subsequent context about Scratch's promotion process distinguishes it from other social tools like posting comments or following users.

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 the exact invocation pattern: calling without `confirm` only reports eligibility, while setting `confirm` to true actually accepts. It also provides the prerequisite (an invitation must be pending) and notes that promotion is irreversible, giving an agent clear guidance on when and how to call the tool.

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