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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the return value: no duplicate/merge behavior, no idempotency, no auth or permission notes. For a create endpoint that the annotations flag as destructive, that silence is meaningful.

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, front-loaded with the action and the return value. The trailing 'Momence: POST /api/v2/host/members.' is cross-reference metadata rather than agent-useful content, a minor use of space.

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 correctly fills that gap by naming the returned memberId. However, for a five-parameter creation tool flagged destructive, it omits duplicate handling and payload expectations, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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% (all five params documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden and a 3 is the baseline. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as format examples or how homeLocationId resolves.

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 ('Add a new customer to the studio') and adds the return value ('Returns the new memberId'), which cleanly separates it from get_member, list_members, and update_member. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as momence_update_member or momence_add_member_to_waitlist, and no prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent what to do if the customer already exists.

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