collaboration_team_membership_set

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes it's a write operation and requires confirmed=true, but it contradicts the schema where confirmed is optional. It does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure, leaving agents uninformed about critical behavioral traits.

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 very short and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the core action. However, it may be too terse given the need for additional detail; a bit more structure could improve clarity without adding much length.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites, permissions, expected return values, and how it differs from closely related tools like collaboration_team_members or collaboration_team_membership_remove.

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 coverage is 0%, so description should add meaning to parameters. It does not describe the purpose of org, teamSlug, username, role, or confirmed beyond the tool name. The role enum values are implied but not explained, and the confirmed parameter's role is ambiguous (required in description but optional in schema).

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a user to an organization team or adjust their team role (member or maintainer).' It provides a specific verb ('Add'/'adjust'), resource ('team membership'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like collaboration_team_membership_remove.

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 labels the operation as a 'Write operation' which implies it should be used for mutations, but it does not explicitly contrast with read-only siblings like collaboration_team_members or removal tools. It mentions a requirement ('confirmed=true') but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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