Add Person To A Group

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds that calling again 'creates another record' and details common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). However, 'Creates the person' is a behavioral misstatement that misleads about the tool's effect, reducing transparency.

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 dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose, followed by essential details. Every sentence contributes (defaults, idempotency, errors, endpoint), though it could be tightened.

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?

It covers required parameters, idempotency warning, error codes, and endpoint. However, the misleading 'Creates the person' and lack of detail on the actual response payload (aside from a new id) leave gaps for an agent selecting/invoking the tool.

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 adds meaning beyond schema by noting company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that person_id must reference an existing parent record, which helps parameter usage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Grant a Person access to or to make them available to a new Group,' which clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_a_person_from_a_group. However, the later phrase 'Creates the person and returns it with its new id' is confusing because person_id is an existing record, muddling the actual outcome.

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?

It implies when to use: when granting an existing person access to a group. It advises resolving person_id with 'the matching list tool first,' but doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. No exclusions or comparison to related tools.

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