Join a community

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

Annotations indicate mutable, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that the action may result in a join request if the community is closed. No contradictions with annotations. Could further detail side effects like notifications or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main action and provide essential parameter guidance. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter format, and behavioral modes. Lacks mention of authentication requirements or what happens if the user is already a member.

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%, but the description adds valuable context for group_id (positive, without minus sign) beyond the schema's description. The not_sure parameter is not enhanced, but the main parameter gains clarity.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'join' and the resource 'community', and distinguishes between direct join and sending a join request for closed communities. This differentiates from sibling tools like vk_groups_search or vk_groups_get_members.

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 context on when to use the tool (joining a community) and clarifies the group_id format (positive, without minus sign). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are diverse and the purpose is clear enough.

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