gitee_add_or_update_org_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'add or update' but does not disclose mutation implications, permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., notifications). This is insufficient 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?

The description is very concise (5 words) with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary context, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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?

Given a simple schema (3 params, no enums beyond role) and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior (e.g., idempotency, default role, member existence handling). The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents all three parameters (org, username, role). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 'Add or update an organization member' clearly states the action and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like gitee_add_enterprise_member (enterprise-focused) and gitee_remove_org_member (removal). It is specific enough to convey the primary function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitee_add_enterprise_member, gitee_get_org_membership). It does not clarify expected behavior or prerequisites, such as whether the member must already exist for updates or if adding implies inviting.

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