cpu_join_syndicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses immediate membership effectiveness, fee rate application, returned trusted rates, the intentional exclusion of player-authored name/link, the exit cooldown commitment, on-chain write behavior, and clear failure conditions. This is exemplary disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose and nearly every sentence adds material behavioral or operational value. A small amount of redundancy exists in the commitment sentence ('so you cannot leave again right away' restates the cooldown), preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, effects, return contents, commitment implications, transaction nature, and failure modes. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the provenance of the id ('from cpu_list_syndicates') but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Join a syndicate by id.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by referencing where ids come from (cpu_list_syndicates) and by stating failure conditions tied to membership state, which distinguishes it from create/leave/get membership tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to obtain ids from cpu_list_syndicates and warns that joining is impossible if already in a syndicate, routing to 'leave first.' It doesn't explicitly contrast with cpu_create_syndicate for creating a new syndicate, but the intended use is clear enough from the name and context.

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