add_team_member

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful behavior: the organisation owner must be on Kiln Business, not the caller. Beyond that gating fact it is silent — no idempotency on re-adding, whether the invitee is notified, required caller permissions, or reversibility.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and tight, but everything after it is promotional copy ("the whole shop works from one library") and a bare upgrade URL. Those sentences do not earn their place in a tool definition.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage needs the description to explain prerequisites, effects, and failure modes. It covers only the plan gate, leaving success behavior, duplicate handling, and role semantics entirely unaddressed.

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 only 25% (just a default for role). The description hints that tenant_id is the added party and team_id the destination, but role and added_by are undocumented in both places, and there is no format guidance or explanation of what values tenant_id accepts.

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?

"Add *tenant_id* to *team_id*" supplies a verb and a target, but it describes the operation in raw parameter names rather than saying what a tenant actually is (a user, an org, a service account) or what membership grants. It also fails to distinguish itself from the adjacent manage_team_member and remove_team_member siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative tools (manage_team_member for role changes, list_team_members to check existing membership). The closest thing to guidance is a plan-entitlement note, which is a prerequisite rather than a routing rule.

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