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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real value: the unlock_shareflo prerequisite and the fallback behavior when stakeholder is omitted. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive, what permissions are needed, or whether the addition is reversible, leaving some gaps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the conditional behavior and the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and the key branching behavior. It stops short of describing permissions, the meaning of the destructive hint, or side effects on the stakeholder's existing representatives, which would round out a write operation.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the omit-behavior for stakeholder and the mutually exclusive co_permission/sh_permission fields. The description's note that omission yields a 'company-level cap table administrator' adds minor nuance but largely restates what the schema says; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a representative (user)') plus the object of management ('a stakeholder's account'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_stakeholder or get_representatives. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first') and a conditional usage rule ('If the stakeholder field is omitted, the representative is added as a company-level cap table administrator'). It does not name alternative tools for adding users, but the context and exclusions it does provide are clear.

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