create_team_membership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description 'Add a user to a team' implies a simple direct addition, but the schema reveals an 'accepted' parameter with default false, suggesting the tool actually creates a pending invitation. This contradiction is not clarified. The description also omits permission requirements, mutability, side effects (e.g., notifications), and whether the operation is reversible.

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 extremely concise—one sentence of five words. It earns its place by stating the core action without fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral context without losing conciseness (e.g., 'or send an invitation' for the accepted parameter).

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools (create_team_invite, update_team_membership, etc.), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address the invitation versus direct addition distinction, the role options, the meaning of the 'accepted' parameter, or any return value details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide essential context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already documented (role, team_id, user_id, accepted). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the entire burden.

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 'Add a user to a team' uses a clear verb+resource structure, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_team_invite, which may have a similar intention but different behavior (invitation vs direct addition). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 create_team_invite, update_team_membership, or list_team_members. There are no prerequisites, context hints, or exclusions stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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