Add team members

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that users already on the team are skipped (idempotency) and that team membership can affect work visibility and assignment, advising user confirmation. This adds significant behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states action and prerequisite, second covers idempotency, third warns about consequences. 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?

Given the tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, and prerequisite. Lacks mention of return value, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining that UserKeys can be obtained via list_users and describes the effect of adding. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 users to a team by UserKeys, specifies the resource (team) and action (add members), and distinguishes from remove_team_member by implying addition rather than removal.

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?

Provides clear context for usage: to add users to a team. Advises using list_users to find UserKeys and warns about membership consequences with a recommendation to confirm with the user. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, but the caution serves as guidance.

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