manage-group-members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains side effects through 'Uses the system addMember/removeMember API', reports per-actor outcomes, and mentions the final roster is echoed back. This gives the agent useful expectations about results and partial failures, though it does not cover permissions or rollback 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by implementation and result details. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is complete for a moderately complex tool. The schema covers parameters, and the description explains the API used, per-request outcome reporting, and the echoed final roster. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the roster echo compensates for the missing return structure.

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 all three parameters thoroughly, including defaults, skip behavior, and partial name matching. The description adds context about reported outcomes but does not need to restate parameter details, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 phrase 'Add and/or remove members' and identifies the resource as 'an existing dnd5e group actor.' It clearly separates this tool from siblings like create-group or add-item by focusing on member management on an existing group.

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 phrase 'existing dnd5e group actor' indicates this tool is for editing groups that already exist, not for creating them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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