add_role_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 important behavioral nuance: the default member type is Windows and how to switch to external/cloud identity via provider. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a simple add operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds necessary nuance about member types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple add operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and the key variable behavior (member type). It omits sessionId details, but that is likely a standard parameter. The absence of error handling details is not critical for this simple tool.

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 75% (sessionId lacks description). The description clarifies the default vs. external member behavior, which complements the schema's parameter descriptions but does not add much beyond them. It does not explain sessionId, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Add a member to a role.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_role' (creating a role) and 'remove_role_member' by specifying the exact action of adding a member. The additional detail about member types further clarifies scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to add members to roles) and gives specific guidance on parameter usage: use Windows member by default, pass a provider for external identities. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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