Add Owner / Shareholder

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'Add...' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or how existing data (e.g., ownership percentages) might be affected. There is no mention of validation or response behavior, leaving the agent with limited understanding of the mutation's impact.

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: the first states the action, the second provides motivating use cases. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the schema is rich and the description identifies key use cases, the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps. The description does not mention what happens after adding an owner (e.g., profile changes, recalculations) or any constraints on ownership percentages. For a mutation tool, this is minimal but not entirely inadequate given the schema's good parameter descriptions.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any detail about parameter semantics—it only mentions the high-level purpose. The schema already covers parameter meaning, so this dimension is adequately served.

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 an owner, shareholder, or partner to the business profile.' It identifies the resource being modified and is distinct from sibling tools like update_profile or setup_business. The mention of specific use cases (salary/dividend planning, income splitting, LCGE planning) further clarifies its role.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: 'I need this for salary/dividend planning, income splitting analysis, and LCGE planning.' This gives clear guidance on usage scenarios, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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