taiga_add_project_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that existing Taiga users are added while unknown emails receive an invitation, but it omits permissions/auth requirements, duplicate-member handling, failure behavior, and side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and then add the important existing-vs-unknown behavioral distinction. No sentence is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invite behavior but leaves out permission requirements, duplicate handling, and what happens on success/failure. It is minimally sufficient to call the tool but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying that email identifies the user and role_name accepts values like 'Product Owner' or 'Back'. However, project_id is not semantically explained beyond being implied by 'to a project', and email format remains undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: inviting a user to a project by email with a role. It clearly distinguishes the operation from project/story/issue CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling since none directly overlaps.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Invite a user to a project', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The operation is simple enough that implied usage is minimally adequate.

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