Add Card Member

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context that annotations do not cover: the added user will be listed with type=1, and the return value is the added user (simplified per verbosity) including the type field. It does not contradict the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key distinction from the responsible-promotion tool, then ID sourcing, then return behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned. It also covers how to verify the result via kaiten_list_card_members, how to promote later, and where the IDs come from. Only minor gaps such as explicit permission/error behavior are absent, but these are not critical for this simple 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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the userId source and clarifies that verbosity affects the returned user representation, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Attach a user to a card as a member.' It distinguishes this tool from related operations by stating that the user will appear as type=1, while kaiten_set_card_responsible promotes to type=2. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does 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?

The description gives explicit usage context: to attach a member, use this tool; to promote an existing member to responsible, use kaiten_set_card_responsible. It also tells the agent where to source userId values (kaiten_list_users or kaiten_list_space_users), giving clear prerequisites and routing to alternatives.

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