memory_join_room

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the returned address should be used as the domain for memory_write/memory_read. No contradictions. The description enhances understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, providing usage triggers, and outlining post-action steps. No unnecessary words or 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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what to do with the result. Annotations cover safety traits. No gaps.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'code' with full description and constraints (including the 'mnvr_' prefix). The description repeats this and adds usage context, but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('shared memory room'), with the target condition ('using an invite code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_create_room (create vs join) and memory_invite_to_room (invite others vs join).

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 explicitly provides usage triggers: 'when the user pastes an invite code or says something like join room with code ...'. It also gives post-join guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the positive use case is clear.

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