collections_add_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior when the user already has access. This is a mutation tool, and the description is silent on those aspects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the essential action with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter operation, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out any error handling, return behavior, or edge-case context. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but lacks depth for an agent to anticipate failures or side effects.

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 documents both parameters (id as Collection ID, userId as User ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond matching the resource and user, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter understanding.

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 'Grant a user access to a collection' uses a specific verb ('grant') and resource ('collection'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like collections_add_group (which grants a group) and collections_remove_user (which revokes access). It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like collections_add_group or any prerequisites (e.g., user/collection existence). Usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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