transportAddUser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Adds a user to a transport' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is reversible, what happens if the user already exists, error conditions, or side effects. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose directly. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 100%, with both parameters ('transportNumber' and 'user') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples for these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Adds a user to a transport' clearly states the action (adds) and resource (user to transport), but it's vague about what 'transport' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'transportSetOwner'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or system.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createTransport', 'transportSetOwner', and 'userTransports', there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or context for adding users to transports. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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