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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=true, leaving real behavioral gaps. The description fills them with high-value facts: the temporary password is returned exactly once in this response and is not recoverable afterwards, the email must be unique across the whole platform, and role assignment is bounded by the caller's own privilege level. These are exactly the details an agent needs before invoking a create operation with a one-shot secret.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then four dense sentences each carrying distinct information (roles, permissions, one-time password, email uniqueness) with no filler. It is dense but not padded; the role enumeration is the only slightly long stretch and it earns its place by disambiguating the enum.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the one meaningful return value (the temporary password, surfaced once). Combined with permissions, role hierarchy, and email uniqueness, nothing material is missing for an agent to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: it explains what each role enum value means operationally (operator answers chat, specialist covers chat+funnel+schedule, technician is field execution) and elevates the email parameter to a platform-wide uniqueness constraint. It does not clarify the temp_password/auto-generation interaction beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource ('Cria um membro na equipe da conta') and immediately scopes it with the temp-password behavior. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling write tools remove_team_member and update_team_member, which operate on existing members rather than creating new ones.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions for use: only 'Dono e gerente podem convidar', and a manager cannot assign a role at or above their own, so they cannot create another manager. That is strong when-to-use context, but it never names the alternative tools (update_team_member for later changes, list_team_permissions for inspecting roles), so routing to siblings is left implicit.

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