intercom_join

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added value is that creating makes the caller a manager and that joining is a membership mutation. It does not clarify whether joining is reversible, how it behaves if already a member, or what the result looks like, leaving moderate gaps given no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the three possible actions and then the two invocation modes; every clause earns its place. The 'without tmux' aside is slightly incidental but still relevant context.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers both operating modes adequately. It would be stronger with a note on join idempotency or behavior when already a member, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, create) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same information about omitting name and requiring name for create, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the baseline.

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 names a concrete verb set (list/join/create) and the specific resource (named intercom team), so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like intercom_team or intercom_list, which keeps it from 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?

It gives clear per-mode invocation conditions: omit name to list, set create=true plus name to create and join as manager. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as intercom_team, so it stays below 5.

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