accelo_add_company_manager

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the manager already exists, or what the response looks like. This is a mutation tool with significant undisclosed behavior.

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 short but the Args section uses a code-documentation format that is not ideal for agent consumption. Each element is brief, but the structure could be more front-loaded with usage context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context (permissions, side effects, response). It covers parameters well but leaves critical behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description compensates by documenting all three parameters. It clarifies that manager_id is a 'staff_id' (useful disambiguation), that nature defaults to 'professional', and lists the enum values, which is not present in the schema. This adds meaningful value 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource relationship (staff member as manager of a company). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings accelo_remove_company_manager and accelo_list_company_managers.

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?

Implied usage through the verb 'add' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the sibling removal/list tools. Adequate but leaves context to inference.

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