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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing that the response returns the new memberId and that this maps to POST /api/v2/host/members. It does not mention auth needs, whether email must be unique, or behavior on duplicate submissions, which matters for a create operation.

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 zero filler, front-loading the action first and the return value and endpoint after. Every clause earns its place.

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 create tool with no output schema, disclosing the returned memberId is a helpful touch, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, key mutation context (auth requirements, duplicate-email handling) is absent, and the destructiveHint annotation is unexplained.

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 each of the 5 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new customer to the studio') and clarifies the return value ('Returns the new memberId'). It clearly separates create from read/update siblings like get_member, update_member, and list_members, though it never explicitly names a sibling to disambiguate from add_member_to_waitlist.

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 description says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as add_member_to_waitlist or update_member, and lists no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'add'.

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