add_circle_member

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioural context beyond that: the member is created in a 'pending' state, the Telegram chat id is bound later when the deep link is tapped, and the tool is gated behind an authenticated Proof account. It does not disclose error behaviour, idempotency, or what the call returns, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs each doing distinct work: what the tool does, how it sequences with the sibling, and the auth prerequisite. No filler sentences.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the state (pending), the follow-up call, and the auth gate. It stops short of describing what is returned or what happens on failure, which is the only remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, name, and whatsapp_phone are already fully documented including the E.164 pattern and optionality. The description only restates 'by name' and 'optional pre-declared WhatsApp phone', adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a pending member to a Circle') and immediately distinguishes itself from the neighbouring invite_circle_member by clarifying that this tool only registers the member while the enrollment link is minted elsewhere. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('after adding a member, call invite_circle_member') plus a hard precondition ('needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart') and an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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