code_workspace_add_collaborator

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and role values, but does not disclose behavior such as whether email or user_id is required, duplicate handling, error conditions, or success response. Minimal transparency.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too terse and could include more guidance (e.g., required identification fields) without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not provided, the description omits critical context: how to specify the collaborator (email vs user_id), error handling, and return value. Incomplete for a mutating tool of this complexity.

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 0%, but the description only adds value for the role parameter by listing valid values (viewer | editor | admin). No clarification for workspace_id, email, or user_id, leaving the agent uncertain about how to identify the collaborator.

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?

Clearly states the action (Add), resource (collaborator), target (workspace), and specifies valid roles (viewer | editor | admin). Easily distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_collaborator and update_collaborator.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_collaborator for role changes) and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workspace existence, user identification requirements).

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