team_join

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the call may block waiting for approval, and wait:0 returns immediately. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs — idempotency if already claimed, what happens when the requested role pool is empty, and any auth/permission requirements.

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 core action and the wait behavior are reasonably front-loaded and the text is short. However, the CLI spelling `musterd claim` and ADR references (075/377) consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke, and the parameter sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic.

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?

All three optional parameters are schema-documented and no output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns. Still, for a zero-annotation, zero-required-param tool with approval-blocking behavior, it should say what a successful claim yields and what failure/denial looks like; those gaps leave it only minimally complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real meaning by indicating that `as`, `role`, or the Workspace policy are alternatives, clarifying that the policy is the fallback when neither is supplied. It also restates the wait:0 short-circuit, which reinforces the schema semantics rather than merely repeating field names.

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?

"Claim your seat and go online" gives a verb and a resource, so the general intent (joining/claiming membership) is inferable. But "seat" is unexplained jargon and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like lane_claim or team_leave, so an agent cannot confidently pick this over lane_claim without reading schemas.

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?

"Use as, role, or this Workspace's policy" describes parameter selection, not when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no statement of preconditions (already claimed? invited?), no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling such as team_leave for the inverse action.

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