manage_team_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool manages team seats and role assignments, and enumerates possible actions and roles. No contradictory behaviors are stated.

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 concise—two sentences and a clean bullet-style args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description could mention the return value (e.g., success message or updated member list), but the tool's purpose is clear enough for most use cases. No annotations exist to provide additional context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing allowed values for 'action' and 'role', and explaining that 'email' is ignored for the 'list' action. This is more informative than schema alone.

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 verb ('Add, remove, or update a team member') and specifies the resource ('team member'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a dedicated team management tool, with no similar sibling tools.

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 context ('Enterprise feature') and seat limits for Business and Enterprise tiers, helping the agent decide when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so this is sufficient.

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