Add testers

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable behavior: an invite email is dispatched unless notify is false, and a confirmation flag is mandatory — side effects annotations cannot express. It omits what happens to already-existing testers and what the call returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the side effect, then the guardrail. The trailing fragment 'Team, Developer role.' is terse to the point of ambiguity but costs almost nothing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: permission level, consent requirement, and the invite-email side effect. Missing only duplicate-handling semantics and return shape, which keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is only 40% (emails, notify, confirm undocumented in the schema), and the description does compensate by tying notify to the invite email, project to an id, groups to group names, and confirm to the consent step. However it adds no format details (e.g. email validation, max of 100 addresses, behavior for unknown group names), so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add email addresses as testers') plus optional scoping to a project and tester groups, which is enough to separate it from siblings like remove_testers and list_testers. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 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?

Gives real usage context: consent must be obtained first and confirm: true passed, and the 'Team, Developer role' note signals the required permission level. It stops short of 5 because it never states when to prefer an alternative (e.g. add_build_link or share_build_with_testers) or what happens on duplicates.

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