iam_team_add_member

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the required permission and that the operation is an add, which is helpful. Yet it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the member already exists—though this may be less critical for a simple mutation.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loads the verb and resource, and includes the permission condition without any filler. It is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with no nested objects and has an output schema, so return details are not needed. However, with no annotations, the description could better define prerequisites, expected formats, and behavioral constraints to be fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying that 'member' is a mailbox and that 'team' refers to the current leader's team. This helps disambiguate the parameters, but it does not explain formats or how team and member are identified, so some ambiguity remains.

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 action ('Add one mailbox') and the resource ('this leader's team'). It is specific and inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling iam_team_remove_member by indicating the additive nature of the operation.

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 gives a single usage condition ('when team.manage_members was explicitly granted'), which tells the agent when the tool is permissible. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as iam_team_remove_member or describe when not to use it, so the usage context is inferred rather than spelled out.

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