add_role_to_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('adds') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the role is already assigned, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 a single, efficient French sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple mutation operation and front-loads the essential 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error conditions, nor does it describe what the tool returns. Given the complexity of role management operations, more context is needed for proper agent 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema fields. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Ajoute un rôle à un membre' clearly states the action (adds) and resource (role to member) in French, making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'remove_role_from_member' or 'create_role', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 like 'create_role' or 'remove_role_from_member'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints for role assignment.

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