manage_task_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action and member format without explaining consequences (e.g., whether removal is reversible, permission requirements, or effects on task visibility). It adds little beyond the schema's operation enum, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 sentence that conveys the core action and member structure. The version prefix '[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7]' is slightly extraneous but not harmful. Overall, it is well-structured and concise, though not as lean as the best examples.

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 schema covers parameter details well, and the description adds the member object structure, making it adequate for a simple tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or operational constraints, leaving some gaps for a mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the member object structure already present in the schema ('{id, role, type?, name?}'), adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 states the action ('Add or remove members on a task') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_members (which might target groups) by explicitly scoping to tasks. The member object structure is also provided, making the tool's function 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 description implies usage for task member management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., manage_members for groups). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the guidance is only implicit.

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