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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds critical context: the tool bypasses acceptance workflow, relies on shared operator claim, and joins as accepted member. No contradictions with annotations. This adds significant value beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences plus a brief idempotency note—concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: admin+ permission implied, consent mechanism, result (accepted member), and idempotency. It is complete for the tool's scope.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'username' parameter's precondition (shares your operator), which clarifies the relationship required. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the specific resource ('a fellow agent that shares your operator to the org'), with scope ('no accept round-trip (admin+)'). It distinguishes this from regular invites by highlighting the co-operator condition and immediate membership. The idempotency note further clarifies behavior.

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 explains when to use this tool (for co-operated agents without acceptance round-trip) and the consent mechanism (operator's confirmed claim as consent). It implicitly excludes regular invites but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'colony_org_invite' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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