npm_owner_add

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: grants publish/write permissions and resolves email automatically via /-/user/. This goes beyond the schema and 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The action, permissions, email resolution, and verification step are all front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple 2-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, permissions, and a pre-add verification step. It could mention reversibility or side effects, but the core context is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (name, username). The description doesn't add much beyond noting that email is resolved automatically, which is implicit in 'username'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Add a user as a maintainer of a package') with clear resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like npm_owner_remove. The mention of publish/write permissions adds specificity.

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?

Provides clear context by recommending npm_collaborators for verification before adding, which implies when to use this tool (after checking current maintainers). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the verification guidance is actionable.

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