Join an Oase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement, that it sets the display name, and that it makes this oase the default target for send_message. These are important side effects. It does not mention failure behavior or reversibility, but for a join operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, then lists the prerequisite, and then the side effects. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a join tool: it explains the prerequisite, the side effects (setting display name and default target), and gives an example URL. It lacks details on error handling or return value, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the key information is present. It could mention what happens if the invite link is invalid, but that is minor.

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 100%—both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that it sets display name, which is already in the parameter description. It also mentions the invite link format in the description, but that's also covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters well.

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 specific action: joining an oase via an invite link, with an explicit URL example. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is different from sending messages or other operations, and it specifies that it sets the default target for send_message, which is a unique behavior.

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 a clear prerequisite: the user must be logged in as a Promise user first, referencing the specific login tools (promise_login_start/finish). This tells the agent when to use the tool (after login) and what the alternative actions are for authentication. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings.

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