team_grant_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the admin-gating requirement and the effect on smart_recall visibility. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or side effects such as what happens if the group does not exist. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core action, then explains the behavioral effect, distinguishes from related concepts, states a precondition, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler information.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, effect, and precondition. However, it omits details about error cases, return values, and default behavior for the action parameter. The example helps but does not address all potential uncertainties an agent might face.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of assigned_by by stating that the user must be admin, and explains the group concept. It provides an example mapping parameters to values. However, it does not significantly add new semantic information beyond what the schema already 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 specific verb (add or remove) and resource (team member to/from a named group on a shared brain). It explains the behavioral effect of group-scoped lessons on smart_recall, distinguishing this from other visibility concepts. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 some context: it mentions that this is orthogonal to lesson-level private and that it is admin-gated after bootstrap. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like team_assign_role or team_scopes, nor does it specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage guidance is implied but not explicitly actionable.

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