join_community

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (external side effects). The description adds no additional behavioral details—it does not mention what happens if the community doesn't exist, if already a member, or any rate limits. Given the mutation nature, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 mutation operation (no readOnlyHint), open world hint, and absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or side effects. For a simple tool, more context is needed to ensure proper invocation.

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% for the only parameter. The description reiterates the schema's description ('Numeric ID of the community to join') without adding new meaning or formatting details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 the action ('Join'), the resource ('X (Twitter) community'), and the required input format ('numeric community ID'). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, none of which are community-join operations.

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?

No explicit when or when-not guidance is given. The description implies the tool is for joining a community by ID, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, membership status) or alternatives. The simplicity of the tool reduces the need, but some context would help.

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