add_agents_to_jam

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: agents run in the background, each responds to the first prompt, then reviews other responses, and results should be followed with get_jam_results. This explains the asynchronous flow and interaction pattern, which is valuable context for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main behavior stated first and a compact Args section for parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 an output schema exists and annotations declare mutation but not destructive behavior, the description covers the key operational context: prerequisites, async behavior, parameter sources, and the follow-up retrieval tool. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly appears to be 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that jam_id is an active Jam created by the caller and that agent_ids are Knowledge Agent IDs from list_knowledge_agents. It does not describe array constraints such as duplicate handling or maximum count, so it falls short of fully fleshing out all parameter semantics.

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: having Knowledge Agents participate in an active Jam the caller created. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like launch_jam by specifying the Jam must already be active and created by the caller, and by naming the follow-up tool get_jam_results.

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 gives clear usage context: the Jam must be active and created by the caller, agent IDs come from list_knowledge_agents, and results are retrieved via get_jam_results. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly against launch_jam, which keeps it from a 5.

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