add_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the add action, omitting any details about idempotency, error behavior, required permissions, or return value. 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 first sentence is clear and direct, but the second sentence 'Use this tool to assign someone to a card' is redundant and adds no new information. It could be condensed to a single sentence, making the description more efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the response format or side effects. It does not, and it also ignores the optional fields and detailLevel parameters that control response content. The description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, with each parameter having a meaningful description (e.g., 'ID of the card'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema carries the semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specifies the action: 'Add a member to a card.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_member or get_card_members. The verb 'add' and resource 'member to a card' are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Use this tool to assign someone to a card' restates the purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like remove_member, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies a use case but does not differentiate it clearly from sibling tools.

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