Add Team Member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Add', implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether duplicate additions are prevented, permission requirements, or if the agent must be in the same organization). This lack of detail is insufficient for an AI agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It contains no redundant information. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which prevents a perfect score for 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?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., agent and team existence), or post-conditions. For a mutation tool, this level of detail is inadequate for confident use.

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 two required parameters (team_id, agent_id) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'existing agent' hinting agent_id refers to an agent, but provides no information about team_id, formats, constraints, or how the parameters relate. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Add an existing agent to a team' uses a specific verb 'Add' and clearly identifies the resource (agent) and target (team). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_team' (create a new team) and 'remove_team_member' (remove a member), leaving no ambiguity about the action.

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 such as 'create_team_relation'. It does not state prerequisites like the agent must already exist or the team must be valid, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., if the agent is already a member). No exclusions or context for correct usage are given.

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