add_resource_group_member

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the member already exists, or any side effects. It also incorrectly suggests only monitors can be added.

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 very short, but its conciseness comes at the cost of accuracy. A concise but misleading description is worse than a slightly longer accurate one.

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 has nested parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools for resource group membership management, the description is severely lacking. It should list accepted member types, required nested fields, and behavior expectations.

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 description adds no value beyond the input schema and even introduces a nonexistent parameter 'monitorId'. The schema already describes memberType and memberId, but the description contradicts them. The group_id parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 states 'Add a monitor to a resource group', but the input schema allows memberType of 'service' as well, so it omits half the functionality. Additionally, it mentions a required field 'monitorId' which does not exist in the schema; the actual required fields are group_id and body with memberId. This misrepresentation harms clarity.

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 such as remove_resource_group_member or create_resource_group. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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