add_model_to_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Mutating' and explains that linking is non-destructive ('without moving or copying it'), and that membership is overlapping for tags. It also discloses return payload types for each kind. While it doesn't detail error conditions or idempotency, it provides solid context beyond the bare schema. Not a 5 because it could mention potential side effects (e.g., if the model is already a member) or permissions.

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 well-structured and readable, with clear bullet points for kind values. It is not overly long, but it does include a note about removal that could be considered extraneous for this tool's core purpose. Still, the note is valuable for context. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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 moderate complexity (two kinds, linking semantics, and a return payload), the description covers key contextual aspects: prerequisites, non-destructive action, and return types. It doesn't explain the output schema in detail, but that is not required since one exists. It could mention error scenarios or idempotency, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool appropriately in most cases.

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 75%, leaving 'server_version' undocumented. The description does not explicitly explain 'server_version' but does clarify the meaning of 'kind' by listing values and their effects, and it clarifies that 'group_id' refers to tag or system ID. It adds semantic value for 'kind' beyond the schema's simple type. However, it misses the opportunity to explain 'server_version' and could be more thorough for the remaining parameters.

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's function: 'Add a threat model to a group as a member,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'remove_model_from_group' and noting the API limitation for systems, and it differentiates between tag and system kinds.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Both the group and the model must already exist,' and it explains the semantics of each kind ('tag' vs 'system'). It also gives a clear when-not-to-use: 'member REMOVAL is tag-only' and references the alternative 'remove_model_from_group', which is a sibling. This is explicit and helpful.

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