enroll_member_in_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet discloses nothing beyond the implied mutating verb. It omits whether the member or schedule must already exist, capacity/limit rules, idempotency, permission requirements, or what failure looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine preconditions, side effects, or error behavior for an enrollment operation from this text.

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%, so both memberId and scheduleId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ('enroll_member_in_activity' → 'Inscreve um membro em uma atividade'). It confirms a verb+resource but adds no scope, mode, or differentiation from siblings like authorize_entry or create_cart.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., authorize_entry), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent receives no routing guidance at all.

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