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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the reversibility path ('Undoable by removing them from the group') and the backing endpoint (groups/addPerson), which helps the agent understand the mutation's impact.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded, plus a compact endpoint reference. No padding, though the 'Elvanto: groups/addPerson' clause is metadata of marginal value to an agent.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and destructiveHint set, the description covers purpose, optional role, and reversibility. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly without an output schema.

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 schema already documents group_id, person_id, and the position enum. The description restates the position options but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a person to a group') and names the optional role distinction. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like elvanto_add_person_to_flow_step, but the resource is unambiguous enough to distinguish them.

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?

It clarifies that the position parameter is optional (omit for a regular member) and mentions undo, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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