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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call is never performed directly, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and only writes after confirm_action. It also flags the destructive replace-list behavior, matching destructiveHint=true.

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-loads the core action and the anti-fabrication constraint, then the replace semantics, then the confirmation protocol. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the key return contract (status, action_id, plan_token) and the confirmation dependency. Minor omissions remain, such as the 12-member cap and the role field, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 33%, and the description does compensate for the undocumented 'replace' flag by explaining that it replaces the list, plus constrains 'members' to real named people. However, it adds nothing about the 'website' parameter or the per-member role field, leaving part of the low coverage unaddressed.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Add ... team members ... to the site's team block') and clarifies the intended subject ('the person named'). There is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools such as website_update_contacts or website_toggle_block, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete usage rules: only real, previously named people, never invent members, and replace=true replaces the existing list. It also states the tool always runs propose→confirm, which tells the agent when this call is appropriate versus a direct write. It does not name alternative tools for other team/contact edits.

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