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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds crucial behavioral detail: it never generates a password and explains the security rationale (avoiding live credentials in the transcript). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side-effects and password handling without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 sentences deliver purpose, exclusions, and a password requirement with justification. Every sentence earns its place, with the most critical constraint (password) front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the core purpose, exclusions, and a key security constraint. It does not specify success/error return values or exact allowed roles, but given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools for listing/removal, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level info: it explicitly forbids the owner role, which directly informs the 'role' parameter, and clarifies that 'password' is owner-chosen and never echoed. This exceeds schema descriptions, though it does not enumerate all allowed roles beyond the schema's examples.

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 verb (provision) and resource (generated-app runtime member) and explicitly distinguishes from 'Studio collaborator', helping differentiate from sibling tools like list_app_members or update_app_member_role. It also notes the owner role restriction, adding precision. The term 'generated-app' is slightly niche but the overall purpose is clear.

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 provides clear 'when not' guidance (not for Studio collaborator) and an actionable operational step (ask the account owner for the password). It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusions and required-password instruction give enough context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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