github_orgs_add_security_manager_team

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing side effects (e.g., permissions needed, irreversibility, impact on team members). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase), but lacks a complete sentence or structured information. While front-loaded, it could be more informative without significant length increase.

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 the tool's simplicity and absence of annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide essential context: what a security manager team is, what the operation does concretely, and how org/team_slug relate. This leaves the agent needing additional knowledge to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, but descriptions are just parameter names ('org', 'team_slug'), adding no additional meaning. The tool description also does not clarify parameter roles. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 due to 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 'Add a security manager team' clearly states the action (add) and resource (security manager team). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_remove_security_manager_team' and 'github_orgs_list_security_manager_teams'. However, the brief phrasing lacks specificity on the exact operation, such as whether it creates a new team or assigns an existing team to a security manager role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. With many sibling tools related to organization security, the absence of usage context limits effective selection.

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