add_circle_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it explains the pending state, the deferred capture of the Telegram chat id, the authentication requirement, and that this tool is not reachable through start_login. It could still disclose return values, idempotency, or duplicate handling, but it is already meaningfully transparent.

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-organized: purpose first, then workflow, then access prerequisites. Every section contributes useful information and there is no filler, though the ACCESS setup instructions make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

The tool has low parameter complexity and the description covers the core purpose, workflow, next step, and prerequisites. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the tool returns and does not address edge cases such as duplicate membership or idempotency, which an agent may need to call invite_circle_member 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%, so the schema already documents id, name, and whatsapp_phone thoroughly. The description adds only mild semantic context by calling the phone 'pre-declared' and framing the member as pending, but it does not materially extend the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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, resource, and state: adding a pending member to a Circle by name with an optional WhatsApp phone. It also clarifies what this tool does not do by explaining that the Telegram chat id is captured later through a deep link and that invite_circle_member handles the enrollment link, distinguishing it from its sibling.

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 'Agent usage' section gives an explicit workflow directive: after adding a member, call invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment link. The ACCESS block clearly states the prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart) and warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, providing strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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