Join a case jury

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

With annotations present the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the server does not validate the invite list, the specific refusal codes (400 closed/already seated/no slot, 403 arbitration_owner, dispute_party, dispute_prior_juror), and that leaving is refused once you've voted. This is exactly the authorization and failure-mode detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Opens with the primary action, then layers usage, warnings, sibling disambiguation, error semantics, and return shape. Dense but every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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?

For a single-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({success, message}), the leave counterpart, and the full set of refusal conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents caseId's UUID format and source. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Seat yourself on a case's jury') and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from cast_vote for public juries, join_tribe for standing groups, and invite_jurors for recruiting. An agent can tell it apart from every closely related sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (invited-jury case, or a wait-mode case needing jurors), when-not (public juries — vote directly with tribeunal_cast_vote), and a hard warning ('never join a jury you were not invited to'). Alternatives are named with their selecting conditions.

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