npm_team_member_add

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds beyond that by specifying the team format and the org membership prerequisite, which are behavioral constraints not covered by annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the verb, and every sentence contributes useful information: the action, the team format, and a prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema and annotations, the description covers the essential actions and prerequisites. It lacks explicit alternative tool guidance but otherwise is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of team format and the user requirement partially reinforces the schema but does not add new syntactic details beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Add a user to a team.' It specifies the team format ('@scope:team') and the user prerequisite, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm_team_member_remove by its verb and resource.

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 clear context by specifying the team format and that the user must already be in the org, which are important when-to-use conditions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool relative to siblings.

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