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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating an owner key is required, which is an authorization prerequisite the annotations do not cover. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate or unknown email, whether the member is notified, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the authorization constraint second. The description is in French while every sibling title and tool name is English, which is a minor consistency cost for an agent scanning the catalogue, but the text itself is efficient.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the minimum an agent needs (what it does, what credential is required) is present. Missing are error/duplicate behavior and any indication of what the call returns or how to confirm the member was added, which for a team-membership mutation is a real gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters and does not: neither 'email' nor 'role' is mentioned. The enum on role and the email format are self-explanatory from the schema, but the description adds no meaning such as whether role is immutable afterwards or whether email must match an existing account exactly.

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 ('Ajouter un compte existant à l'équipe'), and the qualifier 'compte existant' usefully narrows scope to already-provisioned accounts rather than invitations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_team or the many other add_* 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mutation counterpart to list_team, and must infer that 'compte existant' means an account must already exist before this call rather than an invite flow.

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