polaris_squads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that create registers the squad ACTIVE and that transfer preserves ownership of everything the squad owns — meaningful mutation semantics. However, it omits what happens to resources in the source tribe post-transfer, permission requirements, reversibility, and any return/pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then presents a scannable action/parameter list, then the object shape. Nearly every line earns its place, with only minor redundancy between the action list and the Squad JSON.

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?

For a 4-action, 10-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the action map, required params, mutation behavior, and an inline Squad JSON shape to substitute for the missing output schema. Only error/pagination semantics are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it binds each action to its required params (list→tribe_id, get→squad_id, create→tribe_id+name, transfer→squad_id+destination_tribe_id) and notes the optional mission/reason/limit/cursor/all_pages. This covers the large majority of the 10 params, though it does not explain reason or mission formatting.

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?

States the resource precisely — 'squads, the owning unit of fitness targets, sources, producers, and fitness functions' — which pins down what a squad is in the domain model. The action list enumerates the concrete verbs (list/get/create/transfer). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the polaris_tribes sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Each action is documented with its required parameters, which effectively tells the agent when each action applies (e.g. 'list: tribe_id', 'transfer: squad_id + destination_tribe_id'). This is strong per-action routing. It stops short of naming when NOT to use an action or pointing to a sibling alternative.

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