Add Model To Group

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It states the operation is mutating, clarifies that the model is linked without moving or copying, notes that the model remains independently editable, and discloses per-kind return behavior and an API limitation regarding system member removal.

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 organized with a clear purpose sentence, a short behavioral note, and a structured list for kind values. Every sentence adds useful information, and the removal caveat is placed as a closing note without bloating the main explanation.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, kind-specific behavior, return expectations, and the key limitation around removal. The output schema handles return structure, so the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call this 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?

The schema already describes kind, group_id, and model_id, but the description adds valuable meaning: the semantic difference between 'tag' and 'system', the implications of overlapping tag membership, and distinct return payloads. The server_version parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, preventing a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a threat model to a group as a member,' which clearly identifies the operation. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_model_from_group and explains the tag vs. system semantics, making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly explains when to use each kind ('tag' vs. 'system'), states prerequisites (both entities must already exist), and flags an important usage boundary: member removal is tag-only and points to remove_model_from_group. This gives the agent clear, actionable guidance on when this tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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