create_project_collaborator

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover (like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate adds). With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not insightful.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), a detailed input schema with full property descriptions, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about collaboration roles, permissions, or error conditions that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 0%, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters. The single parameter 'model' and its nested properties (projectId, collaboratorUserId, etc.) are undocumented in the description. However, since the schema fully defines all required fields with descriptions, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a collaborator to a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_project_collaborator' or 'delete_project_collaborator', which would be necessary for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'delete_project_collaborator'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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