Добавить участника

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the entire behavioral burden, and it does not. It does not say whether adding an existing member is a no-op or an error, whether the added user receives a notification, or what the tool returns on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is sized appropriately for what it says, though the brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing of rich content.

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?

A two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one sentence: idempotency, permission requirements, and error behavior are all unstated. The schema covers the parameters, but nothing covers the call's consequences.

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% — both card_id and user_id carry Russian descriptions — so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds nothing beyond restating that a user is added to a card, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource: adding a user as a member of a card. That is unambiguous and the sibling list contains kaiten_remove_card_member, so the direction of the operation reads clearly from the name plus this sentence. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the remove counterpart, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to add a member versus using kaiten_remove_card_member to undo it, no prerequisites about the caller's permissions on the card, board, or space, and no note on whether the target user must already be visible to the caller. The single sentence implies usage but excludes nothing.

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