add_team_member

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Add') without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, error conditions, whether duplicates are handled, or side effects. The presence of remove_team_member suggests mutability, but no destructive hint or idempotency info is given.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it lacks structured sections (e.g., behavior notes, examples) that could slightly improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects) and lack of annotations, the description is too terse. It fails to explain return values, expected behavior on failure, or how it relates to other team management tools. The agent may need additional context to use it correctly.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (workspace_id, team_id, user_id), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a user to a team' using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('user to a team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_team_member, list_team_members, and create_team, ensuring the agent can differentiate purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., team or user existence) or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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