sigma_onboard_member

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the sequence 'create account then add to teams,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if team assignment fails, whether the account creation is rolled back, or if there are side effects beyond these steps — with openWorldHint true, that would be valuable.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Onboard a new member') and efficiently explains the workflow. There is no redundancy; every word contributes value.

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?

As a multi-step operation with 5 parameters and no parameter descriptions, this tool needs more context. The description omits valid member_type values, precondition that the member must not already exist, and failure handling for partial completion. The output schema is present, somewhat reducing the need to describe returns, but the operation-level gaps remain significant.

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%, and the description does not compensate. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'member_type' is unexplained (what values are valid?), and 'team_ids' is not explicitly linked to the 'add to teams' step. The default 'viewer' for member_type and null for team_ids lack context.

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 specifies the action 'onboard a new member' and clarifies it as a composite workflow: 'create account then add to teams.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_create_member (which only creates an account) and sigma_bulk_assign_team_members (which only assigns teams).

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 implies usage for onboarding new members who need both an account and team membership, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over separately calling create_member and update_team_members, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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