gateway_knowledge_member_add

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate that the operation mutates state ('Add or update') and that it requires admin privileges, which is valuable. It does not explain side effects, whether 'update' is idempotent, or what happens on conflicts, but the core mutating nature is clear.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, followed by the essential permission constraint, making it easy to scan.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema and only three simple parameters, the description omits critical selection guidance relative to sibling tools and leaves parameter semantics vague. The admin requirement is helpful, but the lack of any differentiation from gateway_knowledge_space_add_member and absence of param explanations makes the definition incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters. 'space' and 'subject' can be inferred roughly from the tool name and sentence, yet 'role' is entirely undocumented beyond its default. This leaves real ambiguity about what values are valid or what 'subject' refers to (user, group, email).

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 uses a specific verb ('Add or update') and a clear resource ('a member in a group knowledge space'), making the core action understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling gateway_knowledge_space_add_member, so an agent cannot easily tell which to choose.

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 states the permission prerequisite ('Requires space admin access'), which gives useful context for when the tool can be invoked. It does not mention when to prefer this over similar member-management tools like gateway_knowledge_space_add_member or gateway_knowledge_member_remove, leaving usage boundaries implied.

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