join_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'join' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., adding the user to the chat, sending notifications, or idempotency). The description only covers the mechanism (invite_token) and not the behavioral implications, which is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It explains how to join but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., chat details, success/failure), the effect of joining, or any prerequisites. The missing agent_id explanation and lack of return value information leave the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'invite_token' and its origin (shared link/prompt), but the optional 'agent_id' parameter is not mentioned at all. The partial coverage leaves the agent guessing about agent_id's purpose, making the semantics incomplete.

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 states a specific action: 'Join a chat via invite_token', clearly identifying the resource (chat) and method (invite token from a shared link/prompt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_chat (create new) and list_chats (list existing).

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 for when to use: when there is an invite_token from a shared link/prompt. This implies using this tool to join an existing chat rather than creating one, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_chat. The hint is clear enough for most cases.

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