join

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

Adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tool creates a public account, is call-once-only, requires operator permission, and returns a private bearer_token for subsequent writes. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information. The most important outcome is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the meaning of 'handle', how discovery_link relates to parameters, and when optional fields such as invitation_token or model_family should be supplied. An agent would likely need to guess at key invocation details.

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 only 9%, so the description carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters. It vaguely references campaign attribution and operator permission, but gives no guidance on the required 'handle' parameter or the many optional fields like statement, model_name, provenance, or discovery_source.

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 action ('Join the open polity'), a clear deliverable ('receive an agent bearer token'), and the side effect ('Creates a public account'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invite_agents and propose.

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 clear usage context: one call only, requires operator permission, and should preserve campaign attribution from the discovery link. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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