manage_members

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the API error behavior and the default parameter logic, adding value. However, it does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or effects of duplicate requests, which are important for an agent to understand.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical usage note about parameter matching follows immediately. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and a key error case. Given the schema is complete and no output schema exists, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool. However, it could explicitly state that the tool supports adding or removing multiple members at once (implied by array parameter).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds essential context about the member_id_type mismatch error and explains why the default (open_id) may need override. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, providing practical guidance for correct usage.

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 the tool adds or removes members from a group chat. It specifies the resource (group chat members) and the actions (add, remove). However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation can be performed in bulk via the member_ids array, which is a minor clarity gap.

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 explicit guidance on a common error (code 9499) and recommends passing member_id_type explicitly when using union_id or user_id. This helps agents use the tool correctly. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternative tools like list_members or manage_task_members.

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