add_team_member_to_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that 'fields_json' contains 'userId, role, etc.', but does not describe side effects (e.g., notifications, permissions required), error conditions, or return value behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and quickly introduces the key parameter. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and structured effectively.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description should cover prerequisites, return values, and error states. It only states the basic action and barely touches the parameters. The absence of usage context and behavioral details makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'fields_json' is a JSON object with 'userId, role, etc.', which adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe the 'project_id' parameter or provide full format details for 'fields_json' (e.g., required fields, possible values). This partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('team member to a project'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_contact_to_project' (adds a contact, not a member) and 'remove_project_team_member' (removes a member). However, it could be more precise by explicitly stating that this adds a user as a member, but the name and description are adequate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_contact_to_project' or 'update_project_team_member'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist, the user must not already be a member) or exclude scenarios. The lack of usage context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide correctly.

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