b2_create_group_member

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context by disclosing how the one-time application key secret is handled in each mode: file sink mode returns redacted metadata plus a secretSink pointer, while inline mode returns the secret with an explicit warning. This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 two sentences with no padding. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence efficiently explains the two operational modes and their output implications. Every phrase 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 six parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the crucial behavioral distinction between file-sink and inline modes and what the response will contain. It does not enumerate every possible response field or error case, but for this tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds semantic context about secret handling and modes but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already states. A baseline score 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Backblaze account for a new Partner group member.' It clearly identifies the action and the target, and is distinct from siblings like b2_eject_group_member or b2_list_group_members. The extra mode detail reinforces the purpose without obscuring it.

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 makes the intended use clear: this is for onboarding a new Partner group member. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous and the sibling set includes related but distinct operations, so an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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