Manage space membership

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that add/update_role/remove require MANAGER role, that PERMISSION_DENIED is a Chat role rule rather than a network issue, and that remove immediately kicks the user and is not undoable. It also explains that re-adding creates a fresh invitation. This meaningfully supplements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well organized by action, with the critical permission warning front-loaded. Every sentence conveys necessary operational detail, and no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description fully covers each action's behavior, parameter requirements, permission prerequisites, failure semantics, and edge cases. An agent has enough context to invoke the correct action and interpret common failures.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each action to its required parameters (e.g., add uses space+user, update_role uses member_name+role) and clarifying optional/default behavior for role. This exceeds the schema's documentation without fully replacing it.

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 clearly states that the tool manages space membership and enumerates each action (get, add, update_role, remove) with specific behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_members (for checking roles) and raw_request (for Google Groups/Chat-app memberships).

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 explicitly explains when each action is appropriate, when it is not (e.g., cannot add members in DMs/group chats), and which sibling tools to use instead (list_members for role checks, raw_request for special membership types). It also states the required scope and manager permission, making tool selection unambiguous.

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