Assign a user as the project owner to clarify accountability and enable effective project management.
Add a user as an owner of a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID | |
| user_id | Yes | The user ID to add as owner |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', which implies a mutation, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether adding an owner replaces existing owners.
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 filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is quite terse and could include more operational context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema properties, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would make it fully complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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% and both parameters have clear descriptions ('The project ID' and 'The user ID to add as owner'). The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline for high coverage.
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 a clear action ('Add') and resource ('a user as an owner of a project'), so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like teamleader_assign_project or teamleader_remove_project_owner, though 'owner' provides some distinction.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_assign_project or teamleader_remove_project_owner. There are no context cues, exclusions, or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.