gateway_knowledge_space_add_member

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

There are no meaningful annotations beyond a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no side effects, permissions, mutation semantics, or behavior; it merely refers to another tool by name.

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 text is short, but brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single clause cannot serve the agent's selection and invocation needs.

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?

With no annotation support, no parameter documentation, and only an alias reference, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. Even though an output schema exists, the central behavior and parameter semantics are undefined.

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 adds no information about space, subject, or role. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and the default value in the 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 only says 'Compatibility alias for gateway_knowledge_member_add.' This names a sibling and lets an agent infer the operation, but it never states directly that the tool adds a member to a knowledge space. The purpose is clear only if the agent already understands gateway_knowledge_member_add.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this alias versus the canonical gateway_knowledge_member_add or related tools. 'Compatibility alias' hints at legacy use, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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