Add Person To A Group

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a new record and returns HTTP 201, which goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also explains the effect (granting access/making available). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at about 60 words, front-loading the purpose. It includes relevant details like the API endpoint but could omit that for brevity. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, required params, and success response. However, it does not describe potential errors, idempotency, or what happens if the person is already in the group. More detail on the return object would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters and briefly mentions company_id's two formats, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Full parameter semantics are already provided in 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Grant a Person access to or to make them available to a new Group') and identifies the resource and purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_company_user_to_project' by specifying it's for Resource Planning groups, but could be more explicit about how it differs from other add tools.

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 context for use ('Use this to create a new Resource Planning records in Procore') and lists required parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like 'remove_a_person_from_a_group' or 'add_role_to_project'.

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