add_guest_to_task

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

The description mentions the action (share), return (updated guest), and plan restriction (enterprise). However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences that front-load the main action and return value, containing no unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites beyond 'Enterprise plan only', error conditions, or what happens with optional parameters. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool shares a single task with a guest at a chosen permission level and returns the updated guest. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_guest_to_folder and add_guest_to_list by specifying 'single task'. The 'Enterprise plan only' adds a clear constraint.

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 implies when to use (adding guest to a task) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. There is no guidance differentiating from sibling tools like add_guest_to_folder or add_guest_to_list. The 'Enterprise plan only' note provides a precondition but not usage context.

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