hires_add_hiring_team_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Add') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior if the member already exists. More depth is needed for a mutation tool.

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, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 two-parameter add operation with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It could mention expected response or error cases, but the absence is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters clearly (id as job ID, user_id as user to add). The description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable given high schema coverage, but it also does not reinforce the relationship between the parameters and the purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('company member to the job's hiring team'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hires_list_hiring_team. It also includes a usage context ('workflow setup and ownership automation') that reinforces purpose.

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 provides an explicit use context: 'Use in workflow setup and ownership automation.' It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide when to invoke this tool.

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