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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, which signals a mutating operation. The description adds that a step admin can optionally be assigned, but does not clarify what side effects occur (e.g. notifications, replacement if the person is already in the step) or permission requirements. It adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence plus the API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the example parenthetically. The API path is somewhat redundant but not distracting.

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 only destructiveHint and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core operation and optional admin assignment, but omits behavioral details like idempotency, error cases (invalid step_id, duplicate membership), or permissions, leaving gaps that could matter to an agent.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optionally assigning a step admin', which corresponds to the assign_to parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Put a person into') and resource ('people-flow step'), with a concrete example ('start a new guest's follow-up'). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling elvanto_add_person_to_group, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 example ('e.g. start a new guest's follow-up') implies the usage context, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives. An agent gets a hint but no routing guidance.

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