npm_org_member_set

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the update-if-exists behavior, the role enum semantics, and the 'omit role to keep existing role' rule. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main action and role options, then explain the update behavior. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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?

Description covers the core operation, role semantics, and idempotent behavior. The confirm parameter is critical but only in schema; however, the schema's description is sufficient. Given no output schema and straightforward params, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Omit role to keep existing role' which clarifies optionality beyond schema. It also lists allowed roles, reinforcing the enum, but the main added value is the omit-role behavior.

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 specific verbs 'Add' and 'change' targeting a clear resource ('user to an org'), and explicitly lists the valid roles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm_org_member_remove by stating the idempotent update behavior, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (adding or updating org membership) and provides behavioral context (role enumeration, update-if-exists). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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