cpu_join_syndicate

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: membership effective immediately, fee rates apply from that moment, exit cooldown starts at join time, result reports earliest leave time, writes on-chain, and failure cases. This is far beyond minimal expectations.

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 well-structured and every sentence adds value: core action, immediate effects, commitment warning, on-chain nature, and failure conditions. Despite length, it is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource and contains no filler.

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 complexity of the tool (commitment, cooldown, fees) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input source, what happens on join, return value ('returned card', 'earliest time'), and when it fails. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'The syndicate id to join (from cpu_list_syndicates).' The description repeats this reference but adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so 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 a syndicate by id' and specifies the resource and input source ('get ids from cpu_list_syndicates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpu_leave_syndicate and cpu_get_syndicate by focusing on the join action and its immediate consequences.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: ids come from cpu_list_syndicates, and explicitly warns 'if you are already in a syndicate (leave first)' — a clear when-not. Also lists failure conditions for invalid ids and network issues, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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