asana_add_project_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the operation itself, which is acceptable given the annotations, though it does not disclose any side effects like whether existing memberships are affected.

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 sentence that states the action, resource, and gives a concrete example. No wasted words; the purpose is immediately clear.

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 operation with only two required parameters fully described by the schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap here since the operation is straightforward and no return value needs explanation.

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%, with both 'project_gid' and 'members' already described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('member(s) to a project'), and the example clarifies intent. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like asana_add_to_project or asana_add_follower because it explicitly mentions 'project members'.

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 example 'add a teammate to a new board' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_add_follower or asana_add_to_project. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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