transportAddUser

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds context about the effect (objects sit in their own task under the same request number), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether the user must exist, whether the request must be modifiable, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second clarifies the structural outcome. It's front-loaded and 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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the core behavior but lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., what if the user already has a task, what if the transport is released). Given the tool's simplicity, a 3 is fair.

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 both parameters. The description adds the conceptual meaning of 'user' (the user to add) and 'transportNumber' (the request number), but doesn't add format or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a developer task for another user inside a request' and explains the effect ('their changes can travel in it'). It distinguishes itself from generic transport tools by specifying the user-task addition context, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use it: when you need to add a user's task to an existing transport request. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'another user' and 'same request number' provides reasonable usage guidance.

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