add_organization_member

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

The description claims the tool is idempotent and returns 'added=false' for duplicate additions, but the annotations explicitly set idempotentHint to false. This is a direct contradiction, and per scoring rules, a contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: primary purpose, UI context, and behavioral nuance. No extraneous words; information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, existing output schema), the description covers key aspects: action, target, identifier format, and result behavior. It could mention that the person must exist, but that is implied by the operation.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'personIdentifier' can be a person ID or email. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's generic 'a string that will be trimmed'.

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 tool links a person to an organization and specifies where the member appears in Huly. It distinguishes the tool's domain (organizations) from sibling add_*_member tools through context, though it does not explicitly compare alternatives.

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 guidance on identifying the person via ID or email, and mentions idempotent behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other member-adding tools or specify prerequisites like the existence of the organization or person.

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