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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description carries meaningful extra weight. It discloses reversibility ('Undoable by removing them from the group in Elvanto'), which contextualizes the destructive hint, and names the underlying API operation (groups/addPerson), giving the agent a handle for further reference. It still omits auth/permission needs and duplicate-membership behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with the operation and its option front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Elvanto: groups/addPerson' reference is minor but slightly redundant metadata rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the optional position, and reversibility. What is missing is only edge-case behavior (duplicate membership, failure modes, permission requirements), which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 100%, so all three parameters (group_id, person_id, position enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the position option but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (add a person to a group) with the membership level (Leader / Assistant Leader) surfaced up front, so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It is clearly distinct from siblings like elvanto_add_person_to_flow_step and elvanto_create_person, though it never names an alternative to route against, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the wording ('optionally as Leader or Assistant Leader', omit for a regular member per schema), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over related membership/flow tools or any prerequisite (e.g. person and group must already exist). Adequate but with a clear guidance gap.

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