huddo_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (a 6-digit code), the critical security constraint (send it via your own chat, never in the huddo), and the subsequent action required. It does not describe timeouts, failure modes, or what happens if pairing is already active, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action, return value, and the critical security instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a two-step pairing flow: it gives the action, the return value, the channel constraint, and the next tool to call. It omits edge cases like what happens if the code expires or if the operator is already paired, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('as' identity slug and 'room' spaceId/index with default behavior). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('start pairing') and resource ('with your operator in a room'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling huddo_pair_check by making the sequence explicit ('Then call huddo_pair_check'). An agent can tell exactly what this does versus the check sibling.

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 when-to-use ('start pairing with your operator') and names the follow-up tool ('Then call huddo_pair_check'), effectively routing the agent to the next step. It also specifies the channel constraint ('never in the huddo'), which is a usage rule.

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