add_roster_member

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

The description adds the specific 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' requirement, which is not captured in the annotations. Since annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description goes beyond that by disclosing an operational prerequisite. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately states the core action and the critical prerequisite. No filler or redundant information. The most important detail is front-loaded.

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 add operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: the action, the target table, and a required environment flag. It does not describe return values or side effects, but these are not explicitly required here. The description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'sys_id of the roster'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (add), the resource (member to an on-call roster), and even names the underlying table (cmn_rota_member). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rota_schedule or create_on_call_override.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any contextual conditions beyond the WRITE_ENABLED requirement. It does not mention scenarios or prerequisites for calling it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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