Contract Testing: Admin Patch Team Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful '(admin)' privilege signal but does not say whether partial failures roll back, whether adding an existing member errors, or whether repeated calls are safe — notable for a patch-style mutation.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The trailing 'Parameters' block duplicates what the schema already provides, which is mild filler but not damaging.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the sibling disambiguation and mutation semantics needed to call this confidently alongside set_team_users and remove_user_from_team.

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 the schema already documents teamId, operations, the add/remove enum, the fixed '/users' path, and the required user uuid. The description's parameter list merely restates two of those and adds no JSON Patch syntax or error semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb pair (add or remove) and resource (individual users on a team) and names the mechanism (JSON Patch, admin scope). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as contract-testing_admin_set_team_users or contract-testing_admin_remove_user_from_team.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer this tool over set_team_users (which presumably replaces the whole membership set) or remove_user_from_team (single-user removal), even though those siblings are present.

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