scf_add_team_member

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

The description discloses the demotion side-effect (incumbent becomes member) and notes it's a write operation requiring admin. This goes beyond the annotations, which already mark destructiveHint=true, and provides meaningful 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The critical behavioral detail (demotion) is included, and the sentence structure front-loads the action and role options.

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 write operation with four well-documented parameters and an explicit demotion rule, the description covers the essential context an agent needs. It doesn't specify return values, but no output schema exists and the behavior is clear enough.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with sources for IDs. The description adds semantic meaning for membership_role by explaining the three roles and the demotion rule, which clarifies the enum values beyond the schema's generic 'Seat on the team'.

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 states a specific action ('Add an organization member to a team'), the resource involved, and the allowable roles. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like scf_remove_team_member and scf_update_team by focusing on the add operation and the role semantics.

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 indicates the operation requires an admin role and explicitly notes the demotion behavior when a seat is taken. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but the context makes when to use this tool unambiguous given the sibling set.

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