sb_live_join

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: it explains that writes appear live in editors, the agent is shown by API key name, and that it always yields (safe concurrency). It also clarifies authentication requirements (SB_TOKEN or SB_EMAIL/SB_PASSWORD). This is valuable behavioral disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, with the core action and effect front-loaded. It includes relevant details (visibility, naming, concurrency safety, auth) without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured and each sentence adds value.

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 simple join operation, the description covers the main behavioral aspects, safety, and authentication. It does not describe a return value (no output schema exists), but that is not critical for a side-effect action. It does not mention prerequisites like having a site ID or being connected, but the single parameter and context make this reasonably complete.

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?

The schema defines a single parameter site_id (string) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain what site_id refers to or how to obtain it. It only mentions 'the site's live-edit room' but never explicitly maps site_id to that. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no guidance is given on values or format.

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 states a specific action ('Join the site's live-edit room as a visible peer') and explains the observable effect (writes appear in editors, agent shown by API key name). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sb_page_open or sb_connect, which handle different operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 notes it 'always yields, so it is safe beside a human,' which implies it's suitable for concurrent use with human editors, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to avoid it. No comparison to siblings like sb_connect or sb_page_open is given. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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